From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126E11381FA for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 15:27:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DCD25E08A6; Wed, 28 May 2014 15:27:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.sgi.com [192.48.180.66]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B48E085D for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 15:27:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from conejo.engr.sgi.com (conejo.engr.sgi.com [150.166.130.27]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76FB48F8068 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 08:26:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sgi.com (conejo.engr.sgi.com [150.166.130.27]) by conejo.engr.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E924B6784DE2 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 08:26:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 08:26:58 -0700 From: Bob Sanders To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Soliciting new RAID ideas Message-ID: <20140528152658.GA13493@sgi.com> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org References: <20140527223938.GA3701@sgi.com> <20140528015114.3634f6b4@marcec> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140528015114.3634f6b4@marcec> Organization: SGI, Fremont, California, U.S.A. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) X-Archives-Salt: 53febc60-8df3-4944-87c3-539db586c01d X-Archives-Hash: 8dd23e2060a524aa769c821bf3e39db9 Marc Joliet, mused, then expounded: > Am Tue, 27 May 2014 15:39:38 -0700 > schrieb Bob Sanders : > > While I am far from a filesystem/storage expert (I see myself as a mere user), > the cited threads lead me to believe that this is most likely an > overhyped/misunderstood class of errors (e.g., posts [1] and [2]), so I would > suggest reading them in their entirety. > > [0] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/31832 > [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/31871 > [2] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/31877 > [3] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/31821 > FWIW - here's the FreeNAS ZFS ECC discussion on what happens with a bad memory bit and no ECC memory: http://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/ecc-vs-non-ecc-ram-and-zfs.15449/ Thanks Mark! Interesting discussion on btrfs. Bob > HTH > -- > Marc Joliet > -- > "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we > don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup -- -