From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <b10b1e77b9386a0cb53a8607611a5d61@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:44:00 -0500
In-Reply-To: <D82F83B0-7D1D-4589-B32D-562374001037@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: 8991f3aa-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> the other part of the argument — the "write hole"
>> depends on two things that i don't think are universal
>> a) zfs' demand for transactional storage
>
> Huh?!?

why else would the zfs guys be worried about a
"write hole" for zfs?

what would happen to a raid-z if a write returned
as successful but were really written to the disk's cache?
and before the whole write is competed, the disk or
chassis looses power.  isn't that also a "write hole"?

i suppose the answer to this problem is the checksumming.
but if that is the case, what is the point of raid-z?

- erik