> > On 9-Nov-07, at 2:45 AM, can you guess? wrote: ...
> > This suggests that in a ZFS-style installation > without a hardware > > RAID controller they would have experienced at > worst a bit error > > about every 10^14 bits or 12 TB > > > 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 such faults. ... > > but I had a box that was randomly > >> corrupting blocks during > >> DMA. The errors showed up when doing a ZFS scrub > and > >> I caught the > >> problem in time. > > > > Yup - that's exactly the kind of error that ZFS and > WAFL do a > > perhaps uniquely good job of catching. > > WAFL can't catch all: It's distantly isolated from > the CPU end. WAFL will catch everything that ZFS catches, including the kind of DMA error described above: it contains validating information outside the data blocks just as ZFS does. ... > > CERN was using relatively cheap disks > > Don't forget every other component in the chain. I didn't, and they didn't: read the study. ... > > Your position is similar to that of an audiophile > enthused about a > > measurable but marginal increase in music quality > and trying to > > convince the hoi polloi that no other system will > do: while other > > audiophiles may agree with you, most people just > won't consider it > > important - and in fact won't even be able to > distinguish it at all. > > Data integrity *is* important. You clearly need to spend a lot more time trying to understand what you've read before responding to it. - bill This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
