On Jan 16, 2012, at 8:08 AM, David Magda wrote:

> On Mon, January 16, 2012 01:19, Richard Elling wrote:
>>> [1] http://www.usenix.org/event/fast10/tech/full_papers/zhang.pdf
>> Yes. Netapp has funded those researchers in the past. Looks like a FUD
>> piece to me.
>> Lookout everyone, the memory system you bought from Intel might suck!
> From the paper:
>> This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
>> Foundation under the following grants: CCF-0621487, CNS-0509474,
>> CNS-0834392, CCF-0811697, CCF-0811697, CCF-0937959, as well as by generous
>> donations from NetApp, Inc, Sun Microsystems, and Google.
> So Sun paid to FUD themselves?

wouldn't be the first time...

> The conclusions are hardly unreasonable:
>> While the reliability mechanisms in ZFS are able to provide reasonable
>> robustness against disk corruptions, memory corruptions still remain a
>> serious problem to data integrity.
> I've heard the same thing said ("use ECC!") on this list many times over
> the years.

Agree with the ECC comment :-)

If we can classify this as encouragement to use ECC, then you don't need to 
drag ZFS
into the conversation. Interestingly, the only market that doesn't use ECC is 
the PeeCee
market. Embedded and enterprise markets use ECC.
 -- richard

zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to