On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:18:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/06/2007 01:14:56 PM: > > >It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know > what > > >will happen in court (take the example of the recent court decision that > > >all data in RAM be held for discovery ?!WHAT, HEAD HURTS!?). But at the > > >end of the day, if you waited for a sure bet on any technology or > > >potential patent disputes you would not implement anything, ever. > > > > > > Do you have a reference for "all data in RAM most be held". I guess we > > need to build COW RAM as well. > > It is only a magistrate ruling so far -- but I think it is expected to be > upheld. > > http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1181639142254
It sounds like the issue is that discoverable data (access logs) isn't being kept on disk. Demanding that such data be kept persistently is not the same as demanding that RAM be retained for discovery. Woo. Big deal. Not. If that's the correct reading of the story then the story is very badly written. Or am I misreading the story? _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
