In the previous and current responses, you seem quite
determined of
others misconceptions.
I'm afraid that your sentence above cannot be parsed grammatically. If you
meant that I *have* determined that some people here are suffering from various
misconceptions, that's correct.
Given
You have to detect the problem first. ZFS is in a
much better position
to detect the problem due to block checksums.
Bulls***, to quote another poster here who has since been strangely quiet.
The vast majority of what ZFS can detect (save for *extremely* rare
undetectable bit-rot and
Well, I guess we're going to remain stuck in this sub-topic for a bit longer:
The vast majority of what ZFS can detect (save for
*extremely* rare
undetectable bit-rot and for real hardware
(path-related) errors that
studies like CERN's have found to be very rare -
and you have yet to
Chill. It's a filesystem. If you don't like it,
don't use it.
Hey, I'm cool - it's mid-November, after all. And it's not about liking or not
liking ZFS: it's about actual merits vs. imagined ones, and about legitimate
praise vs. illegitimate hype.
Some of us have a professional interest
Just to note here as well as earlier that some of the confusion about what you
had and had not said was related to my not having seen the post where you
talked about RAW and compressed RAW errors until this morning. Since your
other mysteriously 'disappeared' post also appeared recently, I
No, you aren't cool, and no it isn't about zfs or your interest in it. It was
clear from the get-go that netapp was paying you to troll any discussion on it,
and to that end you've succeeded. Unfortunately you've done nothing but make
yourself look like a pompous arrogant ass in every forum
No, you aren't cool, and no it isn't about zfs or
your interest in it. It was clear from the get-go
that netapp was paying you to troll any discussion on
it,
It's (quite literally) amazing how the most incompetent individuals turn out to
be those who are the most certain of their
In the previous and current responses, you seem quite determined of
others misconceptions. Given that fact and the first paragraph of your
response below, I think you can figure out why nobody on this list will
reply to you again.
can you guess? wrote:
No, you aren't cool, and no it isn't
This is a bit weird: I just wrote the following response to a dd-b post that
now seems to have disappeared from the thread. Just in case that's a temporary
aberration, I'll submit it anyway as a new post.
can you guess? wrote:
Ah - thanks to both of you. My own knowledge of
video format
can you guess? wrote:
This is a bit weird: I just wrote the following
response to a dd-b post that now seems to have
disappeared from the thread. Just in case that's a
temporary aberration, I'll submit it anyway as a new
post.
Strange things certainly happen here now and then.
can you guess? wrote:
can you guess? wrote:
This is a bit weird: I just wrote the following
response to a dd-b post that now seems to have
disappeared from the thread. Just in case that's a
temporary aberration, I'll submit it anyway as a new
post.
Strange
can you guess? wrote:
...
Most of the balance of your post isn't addressed in
any detail because it carefully avoids the
fundamental issues that I raised:
Not true; and by selective quoting you have removed
my specific
responses to most of these issues.
While I'm naturally
can you guess? wrote:
...
Most of the balance of your post isn't addressed
in
any detail because it carefully avoids the
fundamental issues that I raised:
Not true; and by selective quoting you have
removed
my specific
responses to most of these issues.
While I'm
Chill. It's a filesystem. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Sincere Regards,
-Tim
can you guess? wrote:
can you guess? wrote:
...
Most of the balance of your post isn't addressed in
any detail because it carefully avoids the
fundamental issues that I raised:
14 matches
Mail list logo
