> Would you two please SHUT THE F$%K UP.
Just for future reference, if you're attempting to squelch a public
conversation it's often more effective to use private email to do it rather
than contribute to the continuance of that public conversation yourself.
Have a nice day!
- bill
This mes
Would you two please SHUT THE F$%K UP.
Dear God, my kids don't go own like this.
Please - let it die already.
Thanks very much.
/jim
can you guess? wrote:
>> Hello can,
>>
>> Thursday, December 13, 2007, 12:02:56 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> cyg> On the other hand, there's always the
>> possibility t
> Hello can,
>
> Thursday, December 13, 2007, 12:02:56 AM, you wrote:
>
> cyg> On the other hand, there's always the
> possibility that someone
> cyg> else learned something useful out of this. And
> my question about
>
> To be honest - there's basically nothing useful in
> the thread,
> perhap
People.. for the n-teenth time, there are only two ways to kill a troll. One
involves a woodchipper and the possibility of an unwelcome visit from the FBI,
and the other involves ignoring them.
Internet Trolls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
http://www.linuxextremist.com/?p=34
Ano
Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello can,
>
> Thursday, December 13, 2007, 12:02:56 AM, you wrote:
>
> cyg> On the other hand, there's always the possibility that someone
> cyg> else learned something useful out of this. And my question about
>
> To be honest - there's basically nothing useful in th
Hello can,
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 12:02:56 AM, you wrote:
cyg> On the other hand, there's always the possibility that someone
cyg> else learned something useful out of this. And my question about
To be honest - there's basically nothing useful in the thread,
perhaps except one thing - doe
Look, it's obvious this guy talks about himself as if he is the person
he is addressing. Please stop taking this personally and feeding the troll.
can you guess? wrote:
>> Bill - I don't think there's a point in continuing
>> that discussion.
>>
>
> I think you've finally found something u
...
> Bill - I don't think there's a point in continuing
> that discussion.
I think you've finally found something upon which we can agree. I still
haven't figured out exactly where on the stupid/intellectually dishonest
spectrum you fall (lazy is probably out: you have put some effort in to
Hello can,
I haven't been wasting so much time as in this thread... but from time
to time it won't hurt :)
More below :)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 4:46:42 PM, you wrote:
>> Hello Bill,
>> I know, everyone loves their baby...
cyg> No, you don't know: you just assume that everyone is as bi
(apologies if this gets posted twice - it disappeared the first time, and it's
not clear whether that was intentional)
> Hello can,
>
> Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 6:57:43 PM, you wrote:
>
>>> Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
>>>
>>> cyg> and it
> made them slower
>>> cyg
> Hello can,
>
> Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 6:57:43 PM, you wrote:
>
>>> Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
>>>
>>> cyg> and it
> made them slower
>>> cyg> That's the second time you've claimed that, so you'll really at
>>> cyg> least have to describe *how* you measured this
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello can,
>
> Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 6:57:43 PM, you wrote:
>
>>> Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
>>>
>>> cyg> and it
> made them slower
>>>
>>> cyg> That's the second time you've claimed that, so you'll really at
>>> cyg>
On 11-Dec-07, at 9:44 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello can,
> ...
>
> What some people are also looking for, I guess, is a black-box
> approach - easy to use GUI on top of Solaris/ZFS/iSCSI/etc. So they
> don't have to even know it's ZFS or Solaris. Well...
Pretty soon OS X will be exactly t
Hello can,
Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 6:57:43 PM, you wrote:
>> Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> cyg> and it
made them slower
>>
>> cyg> That's the second time you've claimed that, so you'll really at
>> cyg> least have to describe *how* you measured this even if
> Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
>
> cyg> and it
>>> made them slower
>
> cyg> That's the second time you've claimed that, so you'll really at
> cyg> least have to describe *how* you measured this even if the
> cyg> detailed results of those measurements may be lost in the mi
Hello can,
Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
cyg> and it
>> made them slower
cyg> That's the second time you've claimed that, so you'll really at
cyg> least have to describe *how* you measured this even if the
cyg> detailed results of those measurements may be lost in the mists
> why don't you put your immense experience and
> knowledge to contribute
> to what is going to be
> the next and only filesystems in modern operating
> systems,
Ah - the pungent aroma of teenage fanboy wafts across the Net.
ZFS is not nearly good enough to become what you suggest above, nor is i
...
I remember trying to help customers move
> their
> >> applications from
> >> TOPS-20 to VMS, back in the early 1980s, and
> finding
> >> that the VMS I/O
> >> capabilities were really badly lacking.
> >>
> >
> > Funny how that works: when you're not familiar
> with something, you ofte
can you guess? wrote:
>> can you guess? wrote:
>>
can you run a database on RMS?
>>> As well as you could on must Unix file systems.
>>>
>> And you've been able to do so for almost three
>> decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and
>> direct I/O ar
grand-dad,
why don't you put your immense experience and knowledge to contribute
to what is going to be
the next and only filesystems in modern operating systems, instead of
spending your time asking for "specifics" and treating everyone of
"ignorant"..at least we will remember you in the after
> can you guess? wrote:
> >> can you run a database on RMS?
> >>
> >
> > As well as you could on must Unix file systems.
> And you've been able to do so for almost three
> decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and
> direct I/O are relative newcomers in the Unix
> environment).
>
can you guess? wrote:
>> can you run a database on RMS?
>>
>
> As well as you could on must Unix file systems. And you've been able to do
> so for almost three decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and
> direct I/O are relative newcomers in the Unix environment).
>
Funny, I re
> can you run a database on RMS?
As well as you could on must Unix file systems. And you've been able to do so
for almost three decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and direct I/O
are relative newcomers in the Unix environment).
> I guess its not suited
And you guess wrong: that's
can you run a database on RMS?
I guess its not suited
we are already trying to get ride of a 15 years old filesystem called
wafl, and a 10 years old "file system" called Centera, so do you thing
we are going to consider a 35 years old filesystem now... computer
science made a lot of improvement sin
> from the description here
>
> http://www.djesys.com/vms/freevms/mentor/rms.html
> so who cares here ?
>
>
> RMS is not a filesystem, but more a CAS type of data
> repository
Since David begins his description with the statement "RMS stands for "Record
Management Services". It is the underlyi
from the description here
http://www.djesys.com/vms/freevms/mentor/rms.html
so who cares here ?
RMS is not a filesystem, but more a CAS type of data repository
On Dec 8, 2007 7:04 AM, Anton B. Rang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > NOTHING anton listed takes the place of ZFS
>
> That's not surpri
> NOTHING anton listed takes the place of ZFS
That's not surprising, since I didn't list any file systems.
Here's a few file systems, and some of their distinguishing features. None of
them do exactly what ZFS does. ZFS doesn't do what they do, either.
QFS: Very, very fast. Supports segregat
> > You have me at a disadvantage here, because I'm
> not
> > even a Unix (let alone Solaris and Linux)
> aficionado.
> > But don't Linux snapshots in conjunction with
> rsync
> > (leaving aside other possibilities that I've never
> > heard of) provide rather similar capabilities
> (e.g.,
> > incre
> There are a category of errors that are
> not caused by firmware, or any type of software. The
> hardware just doesn't write or read the correct bit value this time
> around. With out a checksum there's no way for the firmware to know, and
> next time it very well may write or read the correct b
> You have me at a disadvantage here, because I'm not
> even a Unix (let alone Solaris and Linux) aficionado.
> But don't Linux snapshots in conjunction with rsync
> (leaving aside other possibilities that I've never
> heard of) provide rather similar capabilities (e.g.,
> incremental backup or re-
Once again, profuse apologies for having taken so long (well over 24 hours by
now - though I'm not sure it actually appeared in the forum until a few hours
after its timestamp) to respond to this.
> can you guess? wrote:
> >
> > Primarily its checksumming features, since other
> open source solu
Darren,
Do you happen to have any links for this? I have not seen anything
about NTFS and CAS/dedupe besides some of the third party apps/services
that just use NTFS as their backing store.
Thanks!
Wade Stuart
Fallon Worldwide
P: 612.758.2660
C: 612.877.0385
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12
I believe the data "dedup" is also a feature of NTFS.
--
Darren J Moffat
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> If you ever progress beyond counting on your fingers
> you might (with a lot of coaching from someone who
> actually cares about your intellectual development)
> be able to follow Anton's recent explanation of this
> (given that the higher-level overviews which I've
> provided apparently flew com
> So name these mystery alternatives that come anywhere
> close to the protection,
If you ever progress beyond counting on your fingers you might (with a lot of
coaching from someone who actually cares about your intellectual development)
be able to follow Anton's recent explanation of this (giv
...
> ZFS snapshots and clones save a lot of space, but the
> 'content-hash == address' trick means you could
> potentially save
> much more.
Several startups have emerged over the past few years based on this idea of
'data deduplication', and some have been swallowed up by bigger fish that
cle
> can you guess? wrote:
> >> There aren't free alternatives in linux or freebsd
> >> that do what zfs does, period.
> >>
> >
> > No one said that there were: the real issue is
> that there's not much reason to care, since the
> available solutions don't need to be *identical* to
> offer *comp
STILL haven't given us a list of these filesystems you say match what zfs does.
STILL coming back with long winded responses with no content whatsoever to try
to divert the topic at hand. And STILL making incorrect assumptions.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
> The 45 byte score is the checksum of the top of the tree, isn't that
> right?
Yes. Plus an optional label.
> ZFS snapshots and clones save a lot of space, but the
> 'content-hash == address' trick means you could potentially save
> much more.
Especially if you carry around large files (disk im
(Can we
> declare this thread
> dead already?)
Many have already tried, but it seems to have a great deal of staying power.
You, for example, have just contributed to its continued vitality.
>
> Others seem to care.
>
> > *identical* to offer *comparable* value (i.e., they
> each have
> > dif
> can you guess? wrote:
> >
> >> There aren't free alternatives in linux or freebsd
> >> that do what zfs does, period.
> >>
> >
> > No one said that there were: the real issue is
> that there's not much reason to care, since the
> available solutions don't need to be *identical* to
> offe
> apologies in advance for prolonging this thread ..
Why do you feel any need to? If you were contributing posts as completely
devoid of technical content as some of the morons here have recently been
submitting I could understand it, but my impression is that the purpose of this
forum is to e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/06/2007 09:58:00 AM:
> On Dec 6, 2007 1:13 AM, Bakul Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Note that I don't wish to argue for/against zfs/billtodd but
> > the comment above about "no *real* opensource software
> > alternative zfs automating checksumming and simple
>
On Dec 6, 2007 1:13 AM, Bakul Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that I don't wish to argue for/against zfs/billtodd but
> the comment above about "no *real* opensource software
> alternative zfs automating checksumming and simple
> snapshotting" caught my eye.
>
> There is an open source alte
> As I explained, there are eminently acceptable
> alternatives to ZFS from any objective standpoint.
>
So name these mystery alternatives that come anywhere close to the protection,
functionality, and ease of use that zfs provides. You keep talking about how
they exist, yet can't seem to come
For the same reason he won't respond to Jone, and can't answer the original
question. He's not trying to help this list out at all, or come up with any
real answers. He's just here to troll.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss
Whoever coined that phrase must've been wrong, it should definitely be "By
billtodd you've got it".
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-dis
can you guess? wrote:
>> There aren't free alternatives in linux or freebsd
>> that do what zfs does, period.
>>
>
> No one said that there were: the real issue is that there's not much reason
> to care, since the available solutions don't need to be *identical* to offer
> *comparable* valu
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:45:55PM -0800, can you guess? wrote:
> > There aren't free alternatives in linux or freebsd
> > that do what zfs does, period.
>
> No one said that there were: the real issue is that there's not much
> reason to care, since the available solutions don't need to be
If y
can you guess? wrote:
>
>> There aren't free alternatives in linux or freebsd
>> that do what zfs does, period.
>>
>
> No one said that there were: the real issue is that there's not much reason
> to care, since the available solutions don't need to be *identical* to offer
> *comparable*
> I suppose we're all just wrong.
By George, you've got it!
- bill
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> > Now, not being a psychic myself, I can't state
> with
> > authority that Stefano really meant to ask the
> > question that he posed rather than something else.
> > In retrospect, I suppose that some of his
> > surrounding phrasing *might* suggest that he was
> > attempting (however unskillfully
> Actually, it's central to the issue: if you were
> capable of understanding what I've been talking about
> (or at least sufficiently humble to recognize the
> depths of your ignorance), you'd stop polluting this
> forum with posts lacking any technical content
> whatsoever.
I don't speak "full
> Literacy has nothing to do with the glaringly obvious
> BS you keep spewing.
Actually, it's central to the issue: if you were capable of understanding what
I've been talking about (or at least sufficiently humble to recognize the
depths of your ignorance), you'd stop polluting this forum with
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 los
> Now, not being a psychic myself, I can't state with
> authority that Stefano really meant to ask the
> question that he posed rather than something else.
> In retrospect, I suppose that some of his
> surrounding phrasing *might* suggest that he was
> attempting (however unskillfully) to twist my
> 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.
apologies in advance for prolonging this thread .. i had considered
taking this completely offline, but thought of a few people at least
who might find this discussion somewhat interesting .. at the least i
haven't seen any mention of Merkle trees yet as the nerd in me yearns
for
On Dec 5,
> > I have budget constraints then I can use only
> user-level storage.
> >
> > until I discovered zfs I used subversion and git,
> but none of them is designe
> > d to manage gigabytes of data, some to be
> versioned, some to be unversioned.
> >
> > I can't afford silent data corruption and, if
Literacy has nothing to do with the glaringly obvious BS you keep spewing.
Rather than answer a question, which couldn't be answered, because you were
full of it, you tried to convince us all he really didn't know what he wanted.
The assumption sure made an a$$ out of someone, but you should
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Al Hopper wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Eric Haycraft wrote:
>
> [... reformatted ]
>
>> Why are we still feeding this troll? Paid trolls deserve no response and
>> there is no value in continuing this thread. (And no guys, he isn't being
>> paid by NetApp.. think bigger)
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, can you guess? wrote:
snip reformatted .
> Changing ZFS's approach to snapshots from block-oriented to
> audit-trail-oriented, in order to pave the way for a journaled
> rather than shadow-paged approach to transactional consistency
> (which then makes data re
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Stefano Spinucci wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/7/07, can you guess?
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> wrote:
> >> However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source
> approach
> >> which may allow that to happen, so the real
> question
> >> becomes just how it compares with equally
> inexpensive
>
can you guess? wrote:
>
> Primarily its checksumming features, since other open source solutions
> support simple disk scrubbing (which given its ability to catch most
> deteriorating disk sectors before they become unreadable probably has a
> greater effect on reliability than checksums in any
> I have budget constraints then I can use only user-level storage.
>
> until I discovered zfs I used subversion and git, but none of them is designe
> d to manage gigabytes of data, some to be versioned, some to be unversioned.
>
> I can't afford silent data corruption and, if the final respons
> I was trying to get you
> to evaluate ZFS's
> > incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if
> you actually
> > did so you'd likely be surprised at how little
> difference it makes
> > - at least if you're at all rational about
> assessing it).
>
> ok .. i'll bite since there's no
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Eric Haycraft wrote:
[... reformatted ]
> Why are we still feeding this troll? Paid trolls deserve no response
> and there is no value in continuing this thread. (And no guys, he
> isn't being paid by NetApp.. think bigger) The troll will continue
> to try to downplay
ted) message is a *real* answer?
can you guess? ---
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:19:54 PST
From: can you guess? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on
That would require coming up with something solid. Much like his
generalization that there's already snapshotting and checksumming that exists
for linux. yet when he was called out, he responded with a 20 page rant
because there doesn't exist such a solution. It's far easier to condescend
wh
On Dec 5, 2007, at 17:50, can you guess? wrote:
>> my personal-professional data are important (this is
>> my valuation, and it's an assumption you can't
>> dispute).
>
> Nor was I attempting to: I was trying to get you to evaluate ZFS's
> incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if yo
can you guess? wrote:
> he isn't being
>
>> paid by NetApp.. think bigger
>>
>
> O frabjous day! Yet *another* self-professed psychic, but one whose internal
> voices offer different counsel.
>
> While I don't have to be psychic myself to know that they're *all* wrong
> (that's an adva
he isn't being
> paid by NetApp.. think bigger
O frabjous day! Yet *another* self-professed psychic, but one whose internal
voices offer different counsel.
While I don't have to be psychic myself to know that they're *all* wrong
(that's an advantage of fact-based rather than faith-based opinio
> my personal-professional data are important (this is
> my valuation, and it's an assumption you can't
> dispute).
Nor was I attempting to: I was trying to get you to evaluate ZFS's incremental
risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if you actually did so you'd likely be
surprised at how little
Why are we still feeding this troll? Paid trolls deserve no response and there
is no value in continuing this thread. (And no guys, he isn't being paid by
NetApp.. think bigger) The troll will continue to try to downplay features of
zfs and the community will counter...and on and on.
This me
> > > > On 11/7/07, can you guess?
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > wrote:
> As I said in the post to which you responded, I
> consider ZFS's ease of management to be more
> important (given that even in high-end installations
> storage management costs dwarf storage equipment
> costs) than its real
I
> >> suspect ZFS will change that game in the future.
> In
> > particular for someone doing lots of editing,
> >> snapshots can help recover from user error.
> >
> > Ah - so now the rationalization has changed to
> snapshot support.
> > Unfortunately for ZFS, snapshot support is pretty
> comm
...
> >> Hi bill, only a question:
> >> I'm an ex linux user migrated to solaris for zfs
> and
> >> its checksumming;
> >
> > So the question is: do you really need that
> feature (please
> > quantify that need if you think you do), or do you
> just like it
> > because it makes you feel all w
On 5-Dec-07, at 4:19 AM, can you guess? wrote:
On 11/7/07, can you guess?
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>> However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source
>> approach
>>> which may allow that to happen, so the real
>> question
>>> becomes just how it compares with equally
>> inexpensive
>>>
On 4-Dec-07, at 9:35 AM, can you guess? wrote:
> Your response here appears to refer to a different post in this
> thread.
>
>> I never said I was a typical consumer.
>
> Then it's unclear how your comment related to the material which
> you quoted (and hence to which it was apparently respon
> > > On 11/7/07, can you guess?
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> > However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source
> approach
> > which may allow that to happen, so the real
> question
> > becomes just how it compares with equally
> inexpensive
> > current and potential alternatives (and that would
> > On 11/7/07, can you guess?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source approach
> which may allow that to happen, so the real question
> becomes just how it compares with equally inexpensive
> current and potential alternatives (and that would
> make for an inter
Your response here appears to refer to a different post in this thread.
> I never said I was a typical consumer.
Then it's unclear how your comment related to the material which you quoted
(and hence to which it was apparently responding).
> If you look around photo forums, you'll see an
> inte
I never said I was a typical consumer. After all, I bought a $1600 DSLR.
If you look around photo forums, you'll see an interest the digital workflow
which includes long term storage and archiving. A chunk of these users will
opt for an external RAID box (10%? 20%?). I suspect ZFS will change
[Zombie thread returns from the grave...]
> > Getting back to 'consumer' use for a moment,
> though,
> > given that something like 90% of consumers entrust
> > their PC data to the tender mercies of Windows, and
> a
> > large percentage of those neither back up their
> data,
> > nor use RAID to gu
On 11/29/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That is a great theory ... we have a number of Xserves with
> > Xraids. No ZFS on Mac OS X (yet),
>
> 10.5.
Last I looked they were only supporting read only ZFS under
10.5. Also, based on the experiences of a number of my cow
On 29-Nov-07, at 4:09 PM, Paul Kraus wrote:
> On 11/29/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Xserve + Xserve RAID... ZFS is already in OS X 10.5.
>>
>> As easy to set up and administer as any OS X system; a problem free
>> and FAST network server to Macs or PCs.
>
> That is a gre
On 11/29/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Xserve + Xserve RAID... ZFS is already in OS X 10.5.
>
> As easy to set up and administer as any OS X system; a problem free
> and FAST network server to Macs or PCs.
That is a great theory ... we have a number of Xserves with
Xraids. N
On 29-Nov-07, at 2:48 PM, Tom Buskey wrote:
>> Getting back to 'consumer' use for a moment, though,
>> given that something like 90% of consumers entrust
>> their PC data to the tender mercies of Windows, and a
>> large percentage of those neither back up their data,
>> nor use RAID to guard agai
> Getting back to 'consumer' use for a moment, though,
> given that something like 90% of consumers entrust
> their PC data to the tender mercies of Windows, and a
> large percentage of those neither back up their data,
> nor use RAID to guard against media failures, nor
> protect it effectively fr
> can you guess? metrocast.net> writes:
> >
> > You really ought to read a post before responding
> to it: the CERN study
> > did encounter bad RAM (and my post mentioned that)
> - but ZFS usually can't
> > do a damn thing about bad RAM, because errors tend
> to arise either
> > before ZFS ever
> Brain damage seems a bit of an alarmist label. While you're certainly right
> that for a given block we do need to access all disks in the given stripe,
> it seems like a rather quaint argument: aren't most environments that
> matter trying to avoid waiting for the disk at all? Intelligent prefet
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:28:47PM -0800, can you guess? wrote:
> > How so? In my opinion, it seems like a cure for the brain damage of RAID-5.
>
> Nope.
>
> A decent RAID-5 hardware implementation has no 'write hole' to worry about,
> and one can make a software implementation similarly robust
can you guess? metrocast.net> writes:
>
> You really ought to read a post before responding to it: the CERN study
> did encounter bad RAM (and my post mentioned that) - but ZFS usually can't
> do a damn thing about bad RAM, because errors tend to arise either
> before ZFS ever gets the data or a
Adam Leventhal wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:28:47PM -0800, can you guess? wrote:
>>> How so? In my opinion, it seems like a cure for the brain damage of RAID-5.
>> Nope.
>>
>> A decent RAID-5 hardware implementation has no 'write hole' to worry about,
>> and one can make a software implemen
...
> Well, ZFS allows you to put its ZIL on a separate
> device which could
> be NVRAM.
And that's a GOOD thing (especially because it's optional rather than requiring
that special hardware be present). But if I understand the ZIL correctly not
as effective as using NVRAM as a more general ki
On 11/15/07 9:05 AM, "Robert Milkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello can,
>
> Thursday, November 15, 2007, 2:54:21 AM, you wrote:
>
> cyg> The major difference between ZFS and WAFL in this regard is that
> cyg> ZFS batch-writes-back its data to disk without first aggregating
> cyg> it in N
Hello can,
Thursday, November 15, 2007, 2:54:21 AM, you wrote:
cyg> The major difference between ZFS and WAFL in this regard is that
cyg> ZFS batch-writes-back its data to disk without first aggregating
cyg> it in NVRAM (a subsidiary difference is that ZFS maintains a
cyg> small-update log which
...
> > >> Well single bit error rates may be rare in
> normal
> > >> operation hard
> > >> drives, but from a systems perspective, data can
> be
> > >> corrupted anywhere
> > >> between disk and CPU.
> > >
> > > The CERN study found that such errors (if they
> found any at all,
> > > which they c
>
> On 14-Nov-07, at 7:06 AM, can you guess? wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> And how about FAULTS?
> hw/firmware/cable/controller/ram/...
> >>>
> >>> If you had read either the CERN study or what I
> >> already said about
> >>> it, you would have realized that it included the
> >> effects of suc
...
> The problem it seems to me with criticizing ZFS as
> not much different
> than WAFL, is that WAFL is really a networked storage
> backend, not a
> server operating system FS. If all you're using ZFS
> for is backending
> networked storage, the "not much different" criticism
> holds a fair
>
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
