Jason,
If you think I've said anything about the sky falling or referenced a wiki,
you're responding to something other than what I wrote. I see no need for
further reply.
Cheers,
Bayard
On 11 April 2014 22:36, Jason Belec jasonbe...@belecmartin.com wrote:
Excellent. If you feel this is
It sounds like people are missing the forest for the trees. Some of us
have been successfully RAIDing/deploying storage for years on
everything from IDE vinum to SCSI XFS and beyond without ECC. We use
ZFS today because of its featureset. Data integrity checking through
checksumming is just one of
Interesting point about different kinds of ECC memory. I wonder if the
difference is important enough to consider for a 20x3TB ZFS pool. For the
sake of sakes, I will likely look into getting ECC memory.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Jason Belec jasonbe...@belecmartin.comwrote:
Excellent.
All this talk about controller, sync, buffer, storage, cache got me
thinking.
I looked up out ZFS handles cache flushing, and how VirtualBox handles
cache flushing.
*According to
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E26505_01/html/E37386/chapterzfs-6.html
The only time this should make a difference is when your host experiences an
unclean shutdown / reset / crash.
On Apr 2, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Eric naisa...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe we are referring to the same things. I JUST read about cache
flushing. ZFS does cache flushing and VirtualBox
eh, I suspected that
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Daniel Becker razzf...@gmail.com wrote:
The only time this should make a difference is when your host experiences
an unclean shutdown / reset / crash.
On Apr 2, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Eric naisa...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe we are referring
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Jean-Yves Avenard jyaven...@gmail.comwrote:
On 28 February 2014 20:32, Philip Robar philip.ro...@gmail.com wrote:
cyberjock is the biggest troll ever, not even the people actually
involved with FreeNAS (iX system) knows what to do with him. He does
spend an
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Jason Belec jasonbe...@belecmartin.comwrote:
Technically, what you qualify below is a truism under any hardware. ZFS is
neither more or less susceptible to RAM failure as it has nothing to do
with ZFS. Anything that gets written to the pool technically is sound.
Technically, what you qualify below is a truism under any hardware. ZFS is
neither more or less susceptible to RAM failure as it has nothing to do with
ZFS. Anything that gets written to the pool technically is sound. You have
chosen a single possible point of failure, what of firmware, drive
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Jean-Yves Avenard jyaven...@gmail.comwrote:
Back to the OP, I'm not sure why he felt he had to mentioned being
part of SunOS. ZFS was never part of sunos.
I didn't say I was part of SunOS (later renamed to Solaris 1). SunOS was
dead and buried years before I
On Feb 26, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Daniel Becker razzf...@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, that paper came up in a ZFS-related thread on Ars Technica just
the other day (as did the link to the FreeNAS forum post). Let me just quote
what I said there:
The conclusion of the paper is that ZFS does
Please note, I'm not trolling with this message. I worked in Sun's OS/Net
group and am a huge fan of ZFS.
The leading members of the FreeNAS community make it
clearhttp://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/ecc-vs-non-ecc-ram-and-zfs.15449/
[1] (with
a detailed explanation and links to reports
12 matches
Mail list logo
