<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for steamsprocket.org.uk</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:13:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on POSIX file semantics in Windows by Basil Peace</title>
		<link>http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk/2010/02/26/posix-file-semantics-in-windows/comment-page-1/#comment-220</link>
		<dc:creator>Basil Peace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:13:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk/?p=3#comment-220</guid>
		<description>As I know, Cygwin transparently changes reserved and special characters for symbols from Unicode &quot;Private Symbols&quot; area, so, there is no magic :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I know, Cygwin transparently changes reserved and special characters for symbols from Unicode &#8220;Private Symbols&#8221; area, so, there is no magic <img src='http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ZFS: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error by nye</title>
		<link>http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk/2010/04/05/zfs-one-or-more-devices-has-experienced-an-unrecoverable-error/comment-page-1/#comment-39</link>
		<dc:creator>nye</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:00:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk/?p=117#comment-39</guid>
		<description>Do you happen to know what firmware version you had trouble with? Currently that&#039;s the only drive I still haven&#039;t been able to afford to mirror, so data loss on that one would be particularly bad. That said, it has been in constant use for over a year now without any errors, so I&#039;m not *too* worried. Rather more worried about that godawful Seagate (which is now mirrored with an identical drive) - Seagate used to be good once upon a time :-(.

Anyway, I still firmly believe that the message is stupid. It&#039;s not even *correct* - in reality there was no device error; there was a checksum error. The most likely reason for that is that the block in question (or its checksum) was written incorrectly in the first place, due to a spot of background radiation or whatever.

Not bothering to think about decent user interfaces and documentation just because it&#039;s targetted at the highly paid is a poor excuse.

The fact that software intended for enterprisey use is almost universally unpleasant to use due to needlessly poor design is another rant...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Do you happen to know what firmware version you had trouble with? Currently that&#8217;s the only drive I still haven&#8217;t been able to afford to mirror, so data loss on that one would be particularly bad. That said, it has been in constant use for over a year now without any errors, so I&#8217;m not *too* worried. Rather more worried about that godawful Seagate (which is now mirrored with an identical drive) &#8211; Seagate used to be good once upon a time <img src='http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':-(' class='wp-smiley' /> .</p>
<p>Anyway, I still firmly believe that the message is stupid. It&#8217;s not even *correct* &#8211; in reality there was no device error; there was a checksum error. The most likely reason for that is that the block in question (or its checksum) was written incorrectly in the first place, due to a spot of background radiation or whatever.</p>
<p>Not bothering to think about decent user interfaces and documentation just because it&#8217;s targetted at the highly paid is a poor excuse.</p>
<p>The fact that software intended for enterprisey use is almost universally unpleasant to use due to needlessly poor design is another rant&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ZFS: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error by Michael Mol</title>
		<link>http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk/2010/04/05/zfs-one-or-more-devices-has-experienced-an-unrecoverable-error/comment-page-1/#comment-38</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Mol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:18:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk/?p=117#comment-38</guid>
		<description>Ew, ew, ew. A SAMSUNG HD103* hard drive.

I&#039;ve had two such drives. I bought an HD103UI when it was on sale on Newegg during some Black Friday hardware purchase binge. It failed within a few months. Found bugs evident in the firmware by looking at it via smartctl (test result reporting and logging was just screwed *up*)), RMA&#039;d drive with attached note about buggy firmware.  Got another HD103UI back from them. Ran smartctl on it, noticed same firmware revision. Twigged out on me within a couple months. Attempted to RMA, never heard back.

As for your ZFS error, it was reporting a failed *device*, which is different from filesystem failure. Think of it like a device dropping out of a redundant RAID setup (which ZFS shares some functionality with); yeah, the device died. Throw in a replacement, rebuild (or apparently &quot;zpool replace&quot;, in the case of ZFS), move on.

If you&#039;ve ever used a redundant RAID setup like 1, 5 or 6, or possibly even LVM, you probably got used to a distinction between the filesystem layer and the logical volume the filesystem sat on. ZFS blurs those boundaries by (optionally) using enough redundancy across enough of your physical volumes that, should one fail, you shouldn&#039;t see an operational difference unless you lose more before replacing it.

Interesting parts of that status message: &lt;strong&gt;One or more devices&lt;/strong&gt; has experienced an unrecoverable error.  An attempt was made to correct the error.  &lt;strong&gt;Applications are unaffected&lt;/strong&gt;.

No offense intended, but you&#039;re a sysadmin, using a filesystem targeted at data centers and people who are paid a hefty salary to focus on keeping servers running. Don&#039;t be surprised if there&#039;s a learning curve.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ew, ew, ew. A SAMSUNG HD103* hard drive.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve had two such drives. I bought an HD103UI when it was on sale on Newegg during some Black Friday hardware purchase binge. It failed within a few months. Found bugs evident in the firmware by looking at it via smartctl (test result reporting and logging was just screwed *up*)), RMA&#8217;d drive with attached note about buggy firmware.  Got another HD103UI back from them. Ran smartctl on it, noticed same firmware revision. Twigged out on me within a couple months. Attempted to RMA, never heard back.</p>
<p>As for your ZFS error, it was reporting a failed *device*, which is different from filesystem failure. Think of it like a device dropping out of a redundant RAID setup (which ZFS shares some functionality with); yeah, the device died. Throw in a replacement, rebuild (or apparently &#8220;zpool replace&#8221;, in the case of ZFS), move on.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;ve ever used a redundant RAID setup like 1, 5 or 6, or possibly even LVM, you probably got used to a distinction between the filesystem layer and the logical volume the filesystem sat on. ZFS blurs those boundaries by (optionally) using enough redundancy across enough of your physical volumes that, should one fail, you shouldn&#8217;t see an operational difference unless you lose more before replacing it.</p>
<p>Interesting parts of that status message: <strong>One or more devices</strong> has experienced an unrecoverable error.  An attempt was made to correct the error.  <strong>Applications are unaffected</strong>.</p>
<p>No offense intended, but you&#8217;re a sysadmin, using a filesystem targeted at data centers and people who are paid a hefty salary to focus on keeping servers running. Don&#8217;t be surprised if there&#8217;s a learning curve.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ZFS: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error by Morten</title>
		<link>http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk/2010/04/05/zfs-one-or-more-devices-has-experienced-an-unrecoverable-error/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>Morten</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:07:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk/?p=117#comment-6</guid>
		<description>And once more it is demonstrated why hardware engineers should not be allowed anywhere near software development... :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And once more it is demonstrated why hardware engineers should not be allowed anywhere near software development&#8230; <img src='http://blog.steamsprocket.org.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

