Re: error messages while use fsck.gfs2
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Well, can't we (the Redhat/Centos fanboys) expect a critical Clustered filesystem like GFS2 (Which supports over 16TB on a 64-bit bit systems at least) take a leaf or two from () ZFS on this issue?I'm not quite sure which feature you are suggesting that we take, but I'd be surprised that if the start of a ZFS filesystem were to be overwritten that it could be easily reconstructed.
ZFS is paranoid about metadata integrity to a degree which some might regard as obsessional. There are at least 2 copies of everything and 4 for anything critical.
Of course it does have the advantage of not being a cluster filesystem and having built in raid modes which makes raid6 look a bit careless, along with online fsck and the ability to detect silent disk errors (this is important given that it's statistically likely that a 2Tb 512bytes/sector drive will have undetectable errors not picked up by onboard ECC a couple of times a year)
Which is not to say that we couldn't usefully learn a few lessons from what other filesystems are doing, but only that I'm not sure that it would help for this particular issue.
Bearing in mind that ZFS code is cddl, not GPLv2 (or v3), I believe that it'd be worth looking at the design principles.
I've abused my test boxes in ways which have irreversably corrupted every other filesystem and the worst ZFS has ever done is take the FS offline.
I really wish there was some way of bringing ZFS into the RHEL fold (ie, as a supported FS) as in my opinion it beats the pants off XFS, Ext3/4 or btrfs.
Alan -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster