On Dec 6, 2007, at 00:03, Anton B. Rang wrote: >> what are you terming as "ZFS' incremental risk reduction"? > > I'm not Bill, but I'll try to explain. > > Compare a system using ZFS to one using another file system -- say, > UFS, XFS, or ext3. > > Consider which situations may lead to data loss in each case, and > the probability of each such situation. > > The difference between those two sets is the 'incremental risk > reduction' provided by ZFS.
ah .. thanks Anton - so the next step would be to calculate the probability of occurrence, the impact to operation, and the return to service for each anticipated risk in a given environment in order to determine the size of the increment that constitutes the risk reduction that ZFS is providing. Without this there's just a lot of hot air blowing around in here .. <snip> excellent summary of risks - perhaps we should also consider the availability and transparency of the code to potentially mitigate future problems .. that's currently where i'm starting to see tremendous value in open and free raid controller solutions to help drive down the cost of implementation for this sort of data protection instead of paying through the nose for a closed hardware based solutions (which is still a great margin in licensing for dedicated storage vendors) --- .je _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
