In the previous and current responses, you seem quite determined of
others misconceptions. Given that fact and the first paragraph of your
response below, I think you can figure out why nobody on this list will
reply to you again.
can you guess? wrote:
>> No, you aren't cool, and no it isn't a
> No, you aren't cool, and no it isn't about zfs or
> your interest in it. It was clear from the get-go
> that netapp was paying you to troll any discussion on
> it,
It's (quite literally) amazing how the most incompetent individuals turn out to
be those who are the most certain of their misconc
We had a 'windoze' zpool on two internal disks. It had a number of zvols
which
were ISCSI'd out to a few hosts. This has been in and running for some
months.
Recently someone added some external SE6140 LUNs to the zpool as well,
and last
friday those LUNs were deleted from the SE6140 itself, as
can you guess? wrote:
> Hallelujah! I don't know when this post actually appeared in the forum, but
> it wasn't one I'd seen until right now. If it didn't just appear due to
> whatever kind of fluke made the 'disappeared' post appear right now too, I
> apologize for having missed it earlier.
>
Martin,
I've got the same Asus board as you do and 4GB of ram, but I haven't gotten to
the point of using ZFS or Xen/xVM yet largely because I've been sidetracked
getting the Marvell ethernet to work under b75a; I keep having errors getting
the myk driver to load.
A few weeks ago I had the myk d
No, you aren't cool, and no it isn't about zfs or your interest in it. It was
clear from the get-go that netapp was paying you to troll any discussion on it,
and to that end you've succeeded. Unfortunately you've done nothing but make
yourself look like a pompous arrogant ass in every forum yo
Just to note here as well as earlier that some of the confusion about what you
had and had not said was related to my not having seen the post where you
talked about RAW and compressed RAW errors until this morning. Since your
other mysteriously 'disappeared' post also appeared recently, I susp
>
> 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/controll
>
> On 9-Nov-07, at 3:23 PM, Scott Laird wrote:
>
> > Most video formats are designed to handle
> errors--they'll drop a frame
> > or two, but they'll resync quickly. So, depending
> on the size of the
> > error, there may be a visible glitch, but it'll
> keep working.
> >
> > Interestingly enou
...
Having
> my MP3 collection
> gotten fucked up thanks to neither Windows nor NTFS
> being able to
> properly detect and report in-flight data corruption
> (i.e. bad cable),
> after copying it from one drive to another to replace
> one of them, I'm
> really glad that I've ZFS to manage my data
Hallelujah! I don't know when this post actually appeared in the forum, but it
wasn't one I'd seen until right now. If it didn't just appear due to whatever
kind of fluke made the 'disappeared' post appear right now too, I apologize for
having missed it earlier.
> In a compressed raw file, it
>
> Chill. It's a filesystem. If you don't like it,
> don't use it.
Hey, I'm cool - it's mid-November, after all. And it's not about liking or not
liking ZFS: it's about actual merits vs. imagined ones, and about legitimate
praise vs. illegitimate hype.
Some of us have a professional interes
12 matches
Mail list logo
