On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Elling <richard.ell...@gmail.com>wrote:

> We might buy this argument if, in fact, no other program had the same
> vulnerabilities. But *all* of them do -- including OSX. So it is
> disingenuous
> to claim this as a ZFS deficiency.

No it's disingenuous of you to ignore the fact that I carefully qualified
what I said. To repeat, it's claimed with a detailed example and reasoned
argument that ZFS is *MORE* vulnerable to corruption due to memory errors
when using non-ECC memory and that that corruption is *MORE* likely to be
extensive or catastrophic than with other file systems.

As I said, Jason's and Daniel Becker's responses are reassuring, but I'd
really like a definitive answer to this so I've reached out to one of the
lead Open ZFS developers. Hopefully, I'll hear back from him.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"zfs-macos" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to