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.

Phil

-- 

--- 
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