BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- Subject: [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: bogstad at pobox.com (Bill Bogstad)
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 13:15:52 -0400
- In-reply-to: <536A68C0.4070701@gmail.com>
- References: <5364F3FB.40707@blu.org> <5367AE30.5020205@borg.org> <5367B2A9.3090804@gmail.com> <5367E6E2.7050005@borg.org> <5367EB97.5070501@gmail.com> <536801C9.9030407@borg.org> <697921c8eefc4fde8852a86b2e2f3e12@CO2PR04MB684.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> <CAJFsZ=p22nncGGD3WWxv-PNsOv1chxTBZjmaL-ao465WVazgdg@mail.gmail.com> <f4147adc648047bdb6851ca347856d80@CO2PR04MB684.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20140507144404.GG26127@randomstring.org> <536A61F9.5000507@gmail.com> <CAJFsZ=oAL-JgeT3yoKHA+39ZWWCc830Cf4tB_2EDss-Yiz3Low@mail.gmail.com> <536A68C0.4070701@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Richard Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> wrote: > Bill Bogstad wrote: >> And checksums can be incorrectly generated/verified by any hardware >> at any time.I claim that 100% data integrity is impossible. I don't >> think even ZFS can guarantee 100% data integrity with the right set >> of bizarre hardware failures in the CPU/RAM of the computer. > > ZFS and Btrfs can guarantee 100% data integrity when writes are atomic > (drives honor sync commands) and ECC RAM is in use and sufficient > redundant data is available for reconstruction when errors are detected. > I leave it to the reader to read the ZFS and Btrfs whitepapers that > explain precisely why they can make these guarantees. ECC is not 100%. Nor does it protect against transient CPU/memory cache errors during checksum computation. If you are saying that ZFS can then I will happily read any whitepaper that you like bcause they are doing some kind of awesome. Bill Bogstad
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- References:
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: gaf at blu.org (Jerry Feldman)
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: blu at nedharvey.com (Edward Ned Harvey (blu))
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: bogstad at pobox.com (Bill Bogstad)
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: blu at nedharvey.com (Edward Ned Harvey (blu))
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: dsr at randomstring.org (Dan Ritter)
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: bogstad at pobox.com (Bill Bogstad)
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Richard Pieri)
- [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- Next by Date: [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- Next by thread: [Discuss] SSD drives vs. Mechanical drives
- Index(es):