Hello przemolicc,
Thursday, June 29, 2006, 10:08:23 AM, you wrote:
ppf> On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 10:01:15AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hello przemolicc,
>>
>> Thursday, June 29, 2006, 8:01:26 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> ppf> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> >>
Hello przemolicc,
Thursday, June 29, 2006, 8:01:26 AM, you wrote:
ppf> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> ppf> What I wanted to point out is the Al's example: he wrote about damaged
>> data. Data
>> ppf> were damaged by firmware _not_ disk surface ! In such case
Hello przemolicc,
Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 3:05:42 PM, you wrote:
ppf> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 02:23:32PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hello przemolicc,
>>
>> Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 10:57:17 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> ppf> On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 04:16:13PM -0500, Al Hopper wrote:
>> >> Case
Hello przemolicc,
Wednesday, June 28, 2006, 10:57:17 AM, you wrote:
ppf> On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 04:16:13PM -0500, Al Hopper wrote:
>> Case in point, there was a gentleman who posted on the Yahoo Groups solx86
>> list and described how faulty firmware on a Hitach HDS system damaged a
>> bunch of
Hello Mika,
Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 10:19:05 AM, you wrote:
>>but there may not be filesystem space for double the data.
>>Sounds like there is a need for a zfs-defragement-file utility
MB> perhaps?
>>Or if you want to be politically cagey about naming choice, perhaps,
>>zfs-seq-read-optimize-fil
