From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <0972fca12a15f15ebc88e32409d859a1@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:36:39 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <1232766921.22808.40.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Changelogs & Patches?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 862e44b6-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> You never know when end-to-end data consistency will start to really
> matter. Just the other day I attended the cloud conference where
> some Amazon EC2 customers were swapping stories of Amazon's networking
> "stack" malfunctioning and silently corrupting data that was written
> onto EBS. All of sudden, something like ZFS started to sound like
> a really good idea to them.

i know we need to bow down before zfs's greatness, but i still have
some questions. ☺

does ec2 corrupt all one's data en mass?  how do you do meaningful
redundency in a cloud where one controls none of the failure-prone
pieces.

finally, if p is the probability of a lost block, when does p become too
large for zfs' redundency to overcome failures?  does this depend on
the amount of i/o one does on the data or does zfs scrub at a minimum
rate anyway.  if it does, that would be expensive.

maybe ec2 is heads amazon wins, tails you loose?

- erik