[BUGS] ZFS dis-integration

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2010-Jul-10 06:01:14 +1000, Andrew Sinclair <syncman0x at gmail.com> wrote:
>I've heard rumors that ZFS is unstable. It is not my place to say why,
>or even who would say this but...

I've found the opposite and had more recent problems with UFS than
ZFS.  That said, my latest scrub reported 3 "unrecoverable" files for
reasons I don't understand (since corruption should have been
recoverable via RAIDZ1 redundancy).

>        NAME        STATE     READ WRITE CKSUM
>        zw0801      ONLINE       0     0     0
>          da0s1g    ONLINE       0     0     0

Note that there's no redundancy on this pool which restricts ZFS's
ability to recover from errors.

>all I wish to say here is this: it was a, "Dam Site," easier to
>recover from this, than in UFS. In UFS I have to map each I-node to
>its corresponding file to know the content. This is just the way I see
>FSCK working. In ZFS, a specific cp and generic scrub are the pair of
>commands that fix this.

Yes, being faced with a long list of inode numbers and having to
work out what files are affected is a real PITA.

>and yes, I keep backups but upgrading is a pain as it is, with all the
>manual diff/merges one is required to do. If I were not stonewalled
>out of my own trade, I'd contribute a Subversion based /etc in the
>base install, at my own expense, with pleasure.

Can you explain more about how your proposed approach is an improvement
over mergemaster?  The underlying issue is that /etc contains files
with content depends on both the version of FreeBSD and the specific
host configuration.  Therefore any solution needs to support 3-way
merging - which is messy.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.barnet.com.au/pipermail/bugs/attachments/20100710/42ce2bf8/attachment.bin>