On 9/15/06, can you guess? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Implementing it at the directory and file levels would be even more flexible:
redundancy strategy would no longer be tightly tied to path location, but
directories and files could themselves still inherit defaults from the
filesystem and
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 01:23:31AM -0700, can you guess? wrote:
Implementing it at the directory and file levels would be even more
flexible: redundancy strategy would no longer be tightly tied to path
location, but directories and files could themselves still inherit
defaults from the
On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Celso wrote:
On 12/09/06, Celso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it has already been said that in many
peoples experience, when a disk fails, it completely
fails. Especially on laptops. Of course ditto blocks
wouldn't help you in this situation either!
Exactly.
Chad Lewis wrote:
On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Celso wrote:
the proposed solution differs in one important aspect: it automatically
detects data corruption.
Detecting data corruption is a function of the ZFS checksumming feature. The
proposed solution has _nothing_ to do with detecting
On 9/12/06, Celso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether it's hard to understand is debatable, but
this feature
integrates very smoothly with the existing
infrastructure and wouldn't
cause any trouble when extending or porting ZFS.
OK, given this statement...
Just for the record, these
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
While I'm not a big fan of this feature, if the work is that well
understood and that small, I have no objection to it. (Boy that
sounds snotty; apologies, not what I intend here. Those of you
reading this know how muich you care about my opinion, that's up to
you.)
