On 13-Nov-07, at 9:18 PM, A Darren Dunham wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 07:33:20PM -0200, Toby Thain wrote: >>>>> Yup - that's exactly the kind of error that ZFS and >>>> WAFL do a >>>>> perhaps uniquely good job of catching. >>>> >>>> WAFL can't catch all: It's distantly isolated from >>>> the CPU end. >>> >>> WAFL will catch everything that ZFS catches, including the kind of >>> DMA error described above: it contains validating information >>> outside the data blocks just as ZFS does. >> >> Explain how it can do that, when it is isolated from the application >> by several layers including the network? > > Ah, your "CPU end" was referring to the NFS client cpu, not the > storage > device CPU. That wasn't clear to me. The same limitations would > apply > to ZFS (or any other filesystem) when running in support of an NFS > server. > > I thought you were trying to describe a qualitative difference between > ZFS and WAFL in terms of data checksumming in the on-disk layout.
Yes, I was comparing apples and oranges, as our mysterious friend will be sure to point out. But I still don't think WAFL and ZFS are interchangeable, because if you *really* care about integrity you won't choose an isolated storage subsystem - and does anyone run WAFL on the application host? --Toby > > -- > Darren Dunham > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http:// > www.taos.com/ > Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay > area > < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
