> From: Sebastian Gabler [mailto:[email protected]] > > AFAIK, a bit error in Parity or stripe data can be specifically > dangerous when it is raised during resilvering, and there is only one > layer of redundancy left.
You're saying "error in parity," but that's because you're thinking of raidz, which I don't usually use. You really mean "error in redundant copy," and the only risk, as you've identified, is the error in the *last* redundant copy. The answer to this is: You *do* scrub every week or two, don't you? You should. > I do not think that zfs will have better resilience against rot of > parity data than conventional RAID. That's incorrect, because conventional raid cannot scrub proactively. Sure, if you have a pool with only one level of redundancy, and the bit error creeped in between the most recent scrub and the present failure time, then that's a problem, and zfs cannot protect you against it. This is, by definition, simultaneous failure of all redundant copies of the data. _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
