On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > So your current solution is *NOT* data-safe toward "mis-write":s and other > write errors that go unnoticed at write time. > > While I agree that the probability that the writes to both disks and to > their checksum areas would fail are really low, the "hash tree"/"100% hash" > way of ZFS must be said to be a big enabler because it's an integrity > preservation/data safety scheme of a completely other, higher level:
Anything can fail - you need numbers describing the failure rates (and describing the performance and resource costs of the associated features) to make an intelligent comparison. Thanks, -- Raul
