ZFS install on a partition

bsd at todoo.biz bsd at todoo.biz
Sat May 18 05:32:39 UTC 2013

Le 18 mai 2013 à 06:49, kpneal at pobox.com a écrit :

> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 08:03:30PM -0400, Paul Kraus wrote:
>> On May 17, 2013, at 6:24 PM, "bsd at todoo.biz" <bsd at todoo.biz> wrote:
>>> 3. Should I avoid using ZFS since my system is not well tuned and It would be asking for trouble to use ZFS in these conditions. 
>> No. One of the biggest benefits of ZFS is the end to end data integrity.
>> IF there is a silent fault in the HW RAID (it happens), ZFS will detect
>> the corrupt data and note it. If you had a mirror or other redundant device,
>> ZFS would then read the data from the *other* copy and rewrite the bad
>> block (or mark that physical block bad and use another).
> I believe the "copies=2" and "copies=3" option exists to enable ZFS to
> self heal despite ZFS not being in charge of RAID. If ZFS only has a single
> LUN to work with, but the copies=2 or more option is set, then if ZFS
> detects an error it can still correct it.
> This option is a dataset option, is inheritable by child datasets, and can
> be changed at any time affecting data written after the change. To get the
> full benefit you'll therefore want to set the option before putting data
> into the relevant dataset.

Ok, good to know.
I planned to setup a consistent Snapshot policy and remote backup using zfs send / receive 
That should be enough for me… 

Is the overhead of this setup equal to double size used on disk ? 

> -- 
> Kevin P. Neal                                http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
> "Nonbelievers found it difficult to defend their position in \ 
>    the presense of a working computer." -- a DEC Jensen paper

PGP ID --> 0x1BA3C2FD

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list