Joe Peterson - Latest comments

In response to: Linux needs ZFS - and badly!

HPAVC [Visitor] — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:38:28 +0000

Agreed, ZFS now more than ever. Especially after reading the above "why" comments.

It doesn't take long infront of OpenSolaris to see how sexy ZFS. FUSE just doesn't work at the moment as an alternative, but its an amazing effort.

In response to: More on data integrity: Enter Btrfs!

Kevin Bowling [Visitor] — Wed, 28 May 2008 07:19:50 +0000

Indeed, I am quite excited about Btrfs as well. I just tried your ebuilds and it works quite well. This will be the solution for todays large hard disks and often shoddy hardware RAID implementations.

I wish more of kernel gurus would help speed this awesome FS into mainline.

In response to: Linux needs ZFS - and badly!

Core [Visitor] — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:39:42 +0000

One of the reasons why PATA was replaced by SATA !

What about encrypted filesystems ? Would decryption process provide data integrity checks as a side bonus ?

In response to: Linux needs ZFS - and badly!

Goverp [Visitor] — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:24:08 +0000

FWIW: it seems there are at least two ZFS's. The other one (strictly, zFS, "z/OS Distributed File Service zSeries File System") is a file system for IBM System z9 and z10 mainframes' z/OS UNIX System Services, and is an alternative for the earlier HFS.

In response to: Linux needs ZFS - and badly!

Tim [Visitor] — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:52:55 +0000

@Erik: It's important because error detection on lower levels just doesn't do the job. Check out page 9 of Eric Kustarz' ZFS presentation ("ZFS - The Last Word in File Systems") about what else can cause data corruption in addition the simple media errors that HW protection can cover.

Disks are a lot less reliable than RAM. However, don't think that you're right in thinking RAM is never protected by software means: just search for "Software detection mechanisms providing full coverage against single bit-flip faults" for an example.

In response to: Linux needs ZFS - and badly!

Interested [Visitor] — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:39:14 +0000

Apart from filesystembitrot, how do you actually verify that your common-off-the-shelf platform actually DOES something with that expensive ecc-memory if it supports it all? I'm not talking serverhardware in here, but that stuff you'll get at consumerlevel. Desktops and Laptops and the like.

In response to: Linux needs ZFS - and badly!

Erik [Visitor] — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:13:32 +0000

Why should data integrity be handled on the file system level? Does the operating system's memory manager handle data integrity of RAM? I thought that that was handled entirely in hardware and see no reason why permanent storage should be different.

In response to: Linux needs ZFS - and badly!

otc [Visitor] — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:14:11 +0000

I just found this blog entry:
http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_under_gplv2_already_exists
As far as I understand, the core ZFS is already GPL2 complaint. Or is this a misunderstanding?