gkontos said:
No, I haven't but I take your word for it since you seem to be the expert here
Not for ZFS, there are others here who know more about what to do with it. Phenix comes to mind, for example.
The joke is that the missile systems, at least those I had the questionable honor to provide service for, do not have safety measures. This reduces parts and also makes certain that whoever operates the damned thing does not rely on safety catches and is widely awake while operating it.
SMART has nothing to do with ZFS. SMART will report a failure only after the failure has occurred. ZFS also doesn't get any message from disks. It simply rely on checksums to check the integrity of data.
Yes, it checks your data. And it does this IMHO much better than the SMART code in the HD. You get the notification from ZFS that something does not work out before the HD sees anything wrong. You are free to ignore such warnings if you want.
Your point is that while your data is being constantly checked by checksums, you rely on SWAP which is being used as an alternative to memory, as a tool for data integrity.
No. My point is that if you can have a warning that the disks are about to fail, I want that warning ASAP. Your suggestion to disable checksums to shave a few cycles would help how exactly?
In addition you are adding extra hogs to a system at a time when the system is over loaded.
Yes, and proudly. There is a fundamental difference between a slow system and a crashed system. Also, if the pool which is hosting the swap device or file is supplying redundancy you can survive even a read error upon page-in. Again, it can do that only when checking is enabled.
My opinion and implementation is based upon technical facts and experience. Of course I could be wrong. But I at least I am not arrogant. I see the arrogance in some peoples work each time I am called to fix their catastrophes
Which is more or less exactly what I wrote.
