4 ms·
So this is not a "ZFS bug", but a "ZFS on Linux" bug. The actual ZFS on systems which have had ZFS for decades is not affected at all.
by rhabarba 9y ago
So this is not a "ZFS bug", but a "ZFS on Linux" bug. The actual ZFS on systems which have had ZFS for decades is not affected at all.
- ryao 9y agoIt is a recent regression from 2 months ago that originated in the Linux port. I do not know the status of the other platforms. I and the others involved with the Linux port are still busy handling the issue. I suggest asking the developers of the other platforms whether they had adopted the bad patch or not.
- rhabarba 9y agoI noticed someone has fixed the title, so my comment has lost its point now. Awesome.
- Fnoord 9y ago> The actual ZFS on systems which have had ZFS for decades is not affected at all. ZFS hasn't existed "for decades".
- rhabarba 9y agoOne and a half decades can probably be seen as "decades", but you are right, this was some kind of an exaggeration.
- Annatar 9y agoIt has existed since 2002, and was officially put back into onnv on 31.10.2005, and made available in Solaris 10 update 2 at the end of June 2006. So, it has existed for at least one decade and more.
- Fnoord 9y agoIt hasn't existed since 10 april 1998 therefore "decades" is inaccurate. Furthermore, since it wasn't publicly available from 10 april 2003 (who cares how long it was in development) if you round fairly, then its accurate to say "more than a decade" but "decades" is inaccurate. Because "decades" means "more than 1 decade". It denotes "at least 20 years". That's regardless of the subject we discuss or how good it is etc. Anyway, the original parent admitted their mistake (thank you) so I'm done with that discussion.