Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 12:07:40PM -0700, Brooks Talley wrote: >> I do apologize for the subject-verb construction that implied that ZFS itself, or the ZFS code, or anyone responsible for ZFS, or the letter "Z", was corrupting the data rather than merely being subject to the corruption, or at most a potential suspect. I should have said "A storage system comprised of ZFS filesystem, the underlying geom system, the kernel, the ATA driver, the firmware and hardware on the SATA card, the PCI bridge, the SATA cables, the drives themselves, the power supply, system case, and surrounding environment including temperature, humidity, and RF fields, is corrupting its data". I just figured that was implicit and that we were all results-oriented rather than blame-oriented. Sorry! > > Simple s/corrupting/detecting corruption/ would do:) > No worries, you are not the first one. > > For me it's just quite interesting to observe how people live for years > with h/w corrupting their data and only putting ZFS there reveals the > problems. I wonder how many strange UFS-related problems/panics reported > over the years are due to buggy hardware. > How soon we forget.. - tweaking CP/M 2.2 ASM code to tolerate 7 soft-read errors instead of crapping out after 3 on 8" FDD... - the sound of SCSI heads on hardware controller 'patrol' coveringourass. - that those 10 to the minus <big exponent> error ratings for massive modern HDD DO translate to less than perfect scores after all... ;-) BillReceived on Tue Oct 02 2007 - 20:35:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:18 UTC