> my personal-professional data are important (this is > my valuation, and it's an assumption you can't > dispute).
Nor was I attempting to: I was trying to get you to evaluate ZFS's incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if you actually did so you'd likely be surprised at how little difference it makes - at least if you're at all rational about assessing it). ... > I think for every fully digital people own data are > vital, and almost everyone would reply "NONE" at your > question "what level of risk user is willing to > tolerate". The fact that appears to escape people like you it that there is *always* some risk, and you *have* to tolerate it (or not save anything at all). Therefore the issue changes to just how *much* risk you're willing to tolerate for a given amount of effort. (There's also always the possibility of silent data corruption, even if you use ZFS - because it only eliminates *some* of the causes of such corruption. If your data is corrupted in RAM during the period when ZFS is not watching over it, for example, you're SOL.) How to *really* protect valuable data has already been thoroughly discussed in this thread, though you don't appear to have understood it. It takes multiple copies (most of them off-line), in multiple locations, with verification of every copy operation and occasional re-verification of the stored content - and ZFS helps with only part of one of these strategies (reverifying the integrity of your on-line copy). If you don't take the rest of the steps, ZFS's incremental protection is virtually useless, because the risk of data loss from causes that ZFS doesn't protect against is so much higher than the incremental protection that it provides (i.e., you may *feel* noticeably better protected but you're just kidding yourself). If you *do* take the rest of the steps, then it takes little additional effort to revalidate your on-line content as well as the off-line copies, so all ZFS provides is a small reduction in effort to achieve the same (very respectable) level of protecti on that other solutions can achieve when manual steps are taken to reverify the on-line copy as well as the off-line copies. Try to step out of your "my data is valuable" rut and wrap your mind around the fact that ZFS's marginal contribution to its protection, real though it may be, just isn't very significant in most environments compared to the rest of the protection solution that it *doesn't* help with. That's why I encouraged you to *quantify* the effect that ZFS's protection features have in *your* environment (along with its other risks that ZFS can't ameliorate): until you do that, you're just another fanboy (not that there's anything wrong with that, as long as you don't try to present your personal beliefs as something of more objective validity). - bill This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
