On 10/12/12 16:45, Robbie Crash wrote: > Also, the reason there's so much talk about broken ZFS is because nobody > complains when their pools aren't broken. > >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Roel_D <[email protected]> wrote: >>> How come i see so much ZFS trouble?
I suspect there's more to it than that. ZFS, unlike most file systems, has a built-in checksum feature that checks block integrity. If you have problems on the drive, in the controller, in the DMA mechanism, or in memory itself, you're liable to trip over ZFS checksum errors, which ZFS will then try hard to repair from a mirror or RAID-Z reconstruction. Because most other file systems don't have this capability, they just don't notice. Unless the drive itself flags the data as bad with an uncorrectable low-level read error, the OS happily believes almost any garbage it happens to read from the disk. Thus, I believe that at least some of the people complaining about ZFS stability problems here are actually getting a wonderful canary-in-a-coal-mine warning out of ZFS about the reliability of the hardware they own. Whether those folks take that warning to heart or simply wish it away by changing OSes, well, I guess that's up to them. -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
