> > On 9-Nov-07, at 2:45 AM, can you guess? wrote: > > >>> Au contraire: I estimate its worth quite > >> accurately from the undetected error rates reported > >> in the CERN "Data Integrity" paper published last > >> April (first hit if you Google 'cern "data > >> integrity"'). > >>> > >>>> While I have yet to see any checksum error > >> reported > >>>> by ZFS on > >>>> Symmetrix arrays or FC/SAS arrays with some other > >>>> "cheap" HW I've seen > >>>> many of them > >>> > >>> While one can never properly diagnose anecdotal > >> issues off the cuff in a Web forum, given CERN's > >> experience you should probably check your > >> configuration very thoroughly for things like > >> marginal connections: unless you're dealing with a > >> far larger data set than CERN was, you shouldn't have > >> seen 'many' checksum errors. > >> > >> Well single bit error rates may be rare in normal > >> operation hard > >> drives, but from a systems perspective, data can be > >> corrupted anywhere > >> between disk and CPU. > > > > The CERN study found that such errors (if they found any at all, > > which they couldn't really be sure of) were far less common than
I will note from multiple personal experiences these issues _do_ happen with netapp and emc (symm and clariion) -- I will also say that many times you do not read about them because you will find that when they do happen to you one of the first people to show up on your site will be their legal team pushing paper and sharking for signatures. -Wade _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
