Thanks for the paper. From the paper, you gain a 7-11% increase in capacity due to the consolidation of multiple CRCs and inter-block gaps.
Does anybody know if/when SSD's will go to a 4k block size?
A 7-11% gain in SSD capacity is a BIG deal.
What bugs me is this:
With simple NAT today, a bad guy can't attack the systems behind my NAT solution. I can control access via NAT and define what gets back in.
With real (IPv6) routing, I now have to install firewalls on all of my systems and maintain them individually.
Yes, NAT sucks, but maintaining 30 firewalls when a single NAT firewall was sufficient is simply impractical.
Think of it another way - older folks (parental units) don't even understand their current NAT cable modems. If you introduce (and require) true routing to non-techies, the security exposures become ridiculously easy to propagate.
I'll stick with NAT.
The data loss and corruption that the parent is talking about is the fault of crap hardware. In almost every case, USB is involved, or more rarely the lack of ECC ram. It is true that ZFS is less tolerant of bad hardware.
What good is a fault tolerant file system if it isn't tolerant of faults?
What you're talking about (fault tolerance) on top of a single drive makes exactly no sense. In no circumstance does ZFS do worse than HFS+ on data corruption. If you want to pull your USB stick out -- good luck with your data being intact regardless of the filesystem in use.
With such hardware, it is impossible for any filesystem to function reliably.
Quite incorrect.
USB and Firewire bridges are notorious for this. If you care about your data, you should run the other way if you happen upon one.
Well, golly, those only happen to be the way 99.999% of Apple's customers attach exernal drives, not to mention 99.9% of all of the rest of the world.
The answer doesn't have to be ZFS for everything. If ZFS doesn't work for unreliable USB drives, don't use it. Use HFS+ instead. However, for my 1TB drive, I really want to know if the drive is corrupting my data! HFS+ silently loses a few blocks, and suddenly all my work is suspect. I'll take ZFS over any filesystem that doesn't verify the file integrity. And no, a fsck doesn't verify the file integrity. It verifies only that the metadata looks ok.
I've been using ZFS for years on both server equipment and OSX. It's fantastic software that tells me when things are wrong, and, has features far beyond any filesystem available elsewhere today. Apple, if you're listening, please make ZFS available to regular OSX!
SARCASM
Using that same reasoning, should I ask my local communist party what food I should eat? I can afford a lot of different food, but to be responsible, shouldn't I eat what others tell me I should eat?
/ SARCASM
In other words, your argument is complete BS. There are many factors that determine whether I should or shouldn't do something. Public opinion is VERY low on that factor list.
Just because you don't agree with what I do doesn't mean you get a gold star for pointing out the difference.
I believe in freedom for this exact reason. I can do what I like when I like, as long as I'm not hurting another person when I do it.
An no, driving a truck isn't hurting another person. I've never been in an accident in my truck, and I drive in some horrible conditions.
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android
