> > On 14-Nov-07, at 7:06 AM, can you guess? wrote: > > > ... > > > >>>> And how about FAULTS? > >>>> hw/firmware/cable/controller/ram/... > >>> > >>> If you had read either the CERN study or what I > >> already said about > >>> it, you would have realized that it included the > >> effects of such > >>> faults. > >> > >> > >> ...and ZFS is the only prophylactic available. > > > > You don't *need* a prophylactic if you're not > having sex: the CERN > > study found *no* clear instances of faults that > would occur in > > consumer systems and that could be attributed to > the kinds of > > errors that ZFS can catch and more conventional > file systems can't. > > Hmm, that's odd, because I've certainly had such > faults myself. (Bad > RAM is a very common one,
You really ought to read a post before responding to it: the CERN study did encounter bad RAM (and my post mentioned that) - but ZFS usually can't do a damn thing about bad RAM, because errors tend to arise either before ZFS ever gets the data or after it has already returned and checked it (and in both cases, ZFS will think that everything's just fine). that nobody even thinks to > check.) Speak for yourself: I've run memtest86+ on all our home systems, and I run it again whenever encountering any problem that might be RAM-related. - bill This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
