Well, I guess we're going to remain stuck in this sub-topic for a bit longer:
> > The vast majority of what ZFS can detect (save for
> *extremely* rare
> > undetectable bit-rot and for real hardware
> (path-related) errors that
> > studies like CERN's have found to be very rare -
> and you have ye
> > You have to detect the problem first. ZFS is in a
> > much better position
> > to detect the problem due to block checksums.
>
> Bulls***, to quote another poster here who has since been strangely quiet.
> The vast majority of what ZFS can detect (save for *extremely* rare
> undetectable bit
>
> In the previous and current responses, you seem quite
> determined of
> others misconceptions.
I'm afraid that your sentence above cannot be parsed grammatically. If you
meant that I *have* determined that some people here are suffering from various
misconceptions, that's correct.
Given
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
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
>
> 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
Chill. It's a filesystem. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Sincere Regards,
-Tim
can you guess? wrote:
>> can you guess? wrote:
>>
>
> ...
>
>
>>> Most of the balance of your post isn't addressed in
>>>
>> any detail because it carefully avoids the
>> fundamental issues tha
> > can you guess? wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > Most of the balance of your post isn't addressed
> in
> > any detail because it carefully avoids the
> > fundamental issues that I raised:
> > >
> >
> > Not true; and by selective quoting you have
> removed
> > my specific
> > responses to most of th
> can you guess? wrote:
...
> > Most of the balance of your post isn't addressed in
> any detail because it carefully avoids the
> fundamental issues that I raised:
> >
>
> Not true; and by selective quoting you have removed
> my specific
> responses to most of these issues.
While I'm natur
can you guess? wrote:
>> can you guess? wrote:
>>
>>> This is a bit weird: I just wrote the following
>>>
>> response to a dd-b post that now seems to have
>> disappeared from the thread. Just in case that's a
>> temporary aberration, I'll submit it anyway as a new
>> post.
>>
>>>
> can you guess? wrote:
> > This is a bit weird: I just wrote the following
> response to a dd-b post that now seems to have
> disappeared from the thread. Just in case that's a
> temporary aberration, I'll submit it anyway as a new
> post.
> >
>
> Strange things certainly happen here now and t
can you guess? wrote:
> This is a bit weird: I just wrote the following response to a dd-b post that
> now seems to have disappeared from the thread. Just in case that's a
> temporary aberration, I'll submit it anyway as a new post.
>
Strange things certainly happen here now and then.
The p
This is a bit weird: I just wrote the following response to a dd-b post that
now seems to have disappeared from the thread. Just in case that's a temporary
aberration, I'll submit it anyway as a new post.
> can you guess? wrote:
> > Ah - thanks to both of you. My own knowledge of
> video format
15 matches
Mail list logo
