From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug  8 08:17:05 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C20F106564A
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed,  8 Aug 2012 08:17:05 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B678F8FC12
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed,  8 Aug 2012 08:17:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q788Gux0003758;
	Wed, 8 Aug 2012 10:16:57 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost)
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id
	q787JfAX003360; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:19:41 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:19:41 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <5022104D.8070402@infracaninophile.co.uk>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208080918390.3359@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
References: <793d6519ca3648de7634faff1829b9f7@remailer.privacy.at>
	<5021641E.4030206@une.net.co>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1208072309370.1652@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
	<5022104D.8070402@infracaninophile.co.uk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7
	(wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]);
	Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:16:57 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: compare zfs xfs and jfs o
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:17:05 -0000

> Needing fsck because the drive is failing and not able to store and
> retrieve data reliably any more is a whole different thing.

or bad data stored because of non-disk errors.

> least will discover that this is happening due to the built-in
> checksumming and avoid many instances of silent corruption.  What it
> can't do is take a filesystem containing random errors and reconstruct a
> pristine version from it.  But then what filesystem can?
the question is "how much can".

Anyway ok i will not try anymore to stop you from your ZFS religion.