On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> end-up with the block A. Now if B is relatively common in your data set you
> have a relatively big impact on many files because of one corrupted block
> (additionally from a fs point of view this is a silent data corruption).
> Without de
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 07:33:53PM +, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> On 01/ 7/11 02:13 PM, David Magda wrote:
> >
> >Given the above: most people are content enough to trust Fletcher to not
> >have data corruption, but are worried about SHA-256 giving 'data
> >corruption' when it comes de-dupe? The
On Fri, January 7, 2011 14:33, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> On 01/ 7/11 02:13 PM, David Magda wrote:
>>
>> Given the above: most people are content enough to trust Fletcher to not
>> have data corruption, but are worried about SHA-256 giving 'data
>> corruption' when it comes de-dupe? The entire res
On 01/ 7/11 02:13 PM, David Magda wrote:
Given the above: most people are content enough to trust Fletcher to not
have data corruption, but are worried about SHA-256 giving 'data
corruption' when it comes de-dupe? The entire rest of the computing world
is content to live with 10^-15 (for SAS di
Hello Richard,
I've downloaded a new iso and created the second copy on a different computer
at my workplace (with the "verify data" option enabled within NERO and slow 4x
writing speed) - I also used another blank disc brand.
Cheers
Jan
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Can you verify your burn? I've seen this with a bad burn.
-- richard
On Jan 7, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Jan Sommer wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I've found this thread via google after having trouble installing the recent
> nexantastore community version on my N36L I bought a few days ago.
>
> I'v
>On Fri, January 7, 2011 01:42, Michael DeMan wrote:
>> Then - there is the other side of things. The 'black swan' event. At
>> some point, given percentages on a scenario like the example case above,
>> one simply has to make the business justification case internally at their
>> own company ab
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 06:39:51AM -0800, Michael DeMan wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 6:13 AM, David Magda wrote:
> > The other thing to note is that by default (with de-dupe disabled), ZFS
> > uses Fletcher checksums to prevent data corruption. Add also the fact all
> > other file systems don't have
On Jan 7, 2011, at 6:13 AM, David Magda wrote:
> On Fri, January 7, 2011 01:42, Michael DeMan wrote:
>> Then - there is the other side of things. The 'black swan' event. At
>> some point, given percentages on a scenario like the example case above,
>> one simply has to make the business justifi
I have recently done this. See here for more details:
http://www.solarismen.de/archives/5-Solaris-and-the-new-4K-Sector-Disks-e.g.-WDxxEARS-Part-2.html)
What version are you running?
There's a compiled version of the modified zpool command that will create pools
that are 4K aligned somewhere, f
On Fri, January 7, 2011 01:42, Michael DeMan wrote:
> Then - there is the other side of things. The 'black swan' event. At
> some point, given percentages on a scenario like the example case above,
> one simply has to make the business justification case internally at their
> own company about wh
On Fri, January 7, 2011 04:26, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 23:07, David Magda wrote:
>
>> Would running on recent T-series servers, which have have on-die crypto
>> units, help any in this regard?
>
> The on chip SHA-256 implementation is not yet used see:
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/darren
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bakul Shah
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem -- in
> particular see section 5.1 and the probability table of
> section 3.4.
They say "The expected number of n-bit hashes th
On 01/07/2011 01:15 PM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> On 07/01/2011 11:56, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
>> On 01/07/2011 10:26 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2011 23:07, David Magda wrote:
On Jan 6, 2011, at 15:57, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> Fletcher is faster than SHA-256, so I think that
On 07/01/2011 11:56, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
On 01/07/2011 10:26 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 06/01/2011 23:07, David Magda wrote:
On Jan 6, 2011, at 15:57, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Fletcher is faster than SHA-256, so I think that must be what you're
asking about: "can Fletcher+Verification be f
On 01/07/2011 10:26 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 23:07, David Magda wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 2011, at 15:57, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Fletcher is faster than SHA-256, so I think that must be what you're
>>> asking about: "can Fletcher+Verification be faster than
>>> Sha256+NoVerifica
On Jan 5, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Bruins wrote:
> I have a filer running Opensolaris (snv_111b) and I am presenting a iSCSI
> share from a RAIDZ pool. I want to run ZFS on the share at the client. Is
> it necessary to create a mirror or use ditto blocks at the client to ensure
> ZFS can recover if
On 06/01/2011 23:07, David Magda wrote:
On Jan 6, 2011, at 15:57, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Fletcher is faster than SHA-256, so I think that must be what you're
asking about: "can Fletcher+Verification be faster than
Sha256+NoVerification?" Or do you have some other goal?
Would running on rece
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 22:42:15 PST Michael DeMan wrote:
> To be quite honest, I too am skeptical about about using de-dupe just based o
> n SHA256. In prior posts it was asked that the potential adopter of the tech
> nology provide the mathematical reason to NOT use SHA-256 only. However, if
> O
19 matches
Mail list logo
