Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 12:16:18 -0500 (CDT) From: Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us> To: Martin Simmons <martin@lispworks.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: zfs i/o error, no driver error Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.2.01.1006071213090.12887@freddy.simplesystems.org> In-Reply-To: <201006071655.o57GtSBg029967@higson.cam.lispworks.com> References: <4C0CAABA.2010506@icyb.net.ua> <20100607083428.GA48419@icarus.home.lan> <4C0CB3FC.8070001@icyb.net.ua> <20100607090850.GA49166@icarus.home.lan> <201006071112.o57BCGMf027496@higson.cam.lispworks.com> <20100607121954.GA52932@icarus.home.lan> <201006071655.o57GtSBg029967@higson.cam.lispworks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Martin Simmons wrote: > > It doesn't conflict if you agree that freshly written data is more likely to > be readable that data written long ago (with some curve in between). Depending on the actual failure mechanism, the inverse may actually be true. Freshly written data may be trash while old data still reads fine. > I don't know if there is any science behind that theory... The science is continually changing. A study done even 5 or 7 years ago may no longer be relevant. Regardless, actual results seen in the field count more than any theory. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.GSO.2.01.1006071213090.12887>