On Dec 5, 2007, at 17:50, can you guess? wrote: >> my personal-professional data are important (this is >> my valuation, and it's an assumption you can't >> dispute). > > Nor was I attempting to: I was trying to get you to evaluate ZFS's > incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if you actually > did so you'd likely be surprised at how little difference it makes > - at least if you're at all rational about assessing it).
ok .. i'll bite since there's no ignore feature on the list yet: what are you terming as "ZFS' incremental risk reduction"? .. (seems like a leading statement toward a particular assumption) .. are you just trying to say that without multiple copies of data in multiple physical locations you're not really accomplishing a more complete risk reduction yes i have read this thread, as well as many of your other posts around usenet and such .. in general i find your tone to be somewhat demeaning (slightly rude too - but - eh, who's counting? i'm none to judge) - now, you do know that we are currently in an era of collaboration instead of deconstruction right? .. so i'd love to see the improvements on the many shortcomings you're pointing to and passionate about written up, proposed, and freely implemented :) --- .je _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
