Hi ZFS discuss: I''m a daily regular reader who (usually, before this) never writes but finds the discussion list highly informative in furthering an understanding of ZFS. The discussion also provides useful knowledge for internal cases promoting the use of ZFS. Concerning:> I''ve been observing two threads on zfs-discuss with > the following > Subject lines: > > Yager on ZFS > ZFS + DB + "fragments" > > and have reached the rather obvious conclusion that > the author "can > you guess?" is a professional spinmeisterI''m neither pro or con any particular poster nor within the broad limits of courtesy do I pay too much attention to their social/manner/ politeness style of delivery. In this regard it seems to me (IMHO) that the writer "Can you guess?" sometimes has a sharp and personal edge to his comments which distracts from what he''s actually saying (as well as raising hackles), however, at the same time, both to date and continuing, I and others have found/find those comments, along with many others, very useful in providing insights to ZFS, file systems, etc. His style ("lots of words") may not be to your liking but there are a fair number of folks who appreciate stuff being spelled out, especially in discussion, as this not only makes the matter under discussion clearer but also makes clearer the perspective, biases, understanding etc. of the writer (which is also important). Being a discussion list I and other are trying to respect the time/ detail/research limits that many of you work with in writing the explanations and bringing considered responses back to the discussion list, so I for one am appreciative for (however they do it) those who find/make the time to detail and question in detail what others might take for granted. Just to say that in this case "Can you guess"''s manner may be unnecessarily irritating and offensive to some on this list (as it sometimes seems to me), but it is also true that his technical comments are useful for several of us, as are replies to his replies, and the continuing conversation. I''d much rather hear responses to his technical observations than his personal ones. Why not ignore the latter (within reason - it can''t really be "personal" as he doesn''t know (I assume) you or I)? Being able to glean better understanding, performance etc. for both management and technical decisions when the discussions max out in technical directions is one reason this list is so interesting. Kyle Manjaro Network Systems Architect
until I remembered that you said that you were speaking for others as well and decided that I''d like to speak to them too. As I said in a different thread, I really do try to respond to people in the manner that they deserve (and believe that in most cases here I have done so): even though I recognize that this may be off-putting it''s sometimes the only way to break through bias and complacency, and since I came to zfs-discuss in search of technical interaction rather than a warm, fuzzy feeling of belonging I don''t see too much of a down-side (unless I''ve managed to scare off anyone who might otherwise have contributed some technical insight, which would be unfortunate). But I do apologize if I''ve managed to offend any less-rabid bystanders (I was beginning to wonder whether there *were* any less-rabid bystanders) in the process, since that was not my intent. - bill This message posted from opensolaris.org
Which would be great if there were any merit to what he spews. It''s unfortunate if you''re wasting your time reading the rants, you''d be much better off reading the zfs manual if you need more in-depth explanation of the technology... This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Nov 18, 2007 6:34 PM, can you guess? <billtodd at metrocast.net> wrote:> As I said in a different thread, I really do try to respond to people in > the manner that they deserveThis is the wrong way to approach the problem. If you have a legitimate point, make it courteously and respond to criticism nicely. I don''t care to read the forty or fifty pages of email between you and members of this list to see who made the first argument ad hominem, but it''s irrelevant. Whether you started it or responded to it, you lost any chance of making your point heard when the amount of flaming exceeded the amount of logical content.> (I was beginning to wonder whether there *were* any less-rabid bystanders)Well, there were - I for one would have been interested in criticisms of ZFS, and comparisons to other systems - but I was so put off by the other content in your earlier emails that I didn''t bother reading the later ones. Here''s a paragraph from an early email you sent to the list:> I''m afraid that you just don''t know what you''re talking about, Robert > - and IIRC I''ve corrected you on this elsewhere, so you have no excuse > for repeating your misconceptions now.The adage about attracting more flies with honey than vinegar applies here. Now I shall bow out of this argument entirely. If it ceases to be an argument, though, I shall be interested in seeing what you have to say. Will
>> As I said in a different thread, I really do try to respond to people in >> the manner that they deserve > This is the wrong way to approach the problem.Sorry, Will: it might be the wrong way for *you* to approach ''the problem'' (such as it is), but not for me. ...>> (I was beginning to wonder whether there *were* any less-rabid bystanders) > Well, there were - I for one would have been interested in criticisms > of ZFS, and comparisons to other systems - but I was so put off by the > other content in your earlier emails that I didn''t bother reading the > later ones.Your choice, your loss: take responsibility for it. Here''s a paragraph from an early email you sent to the> list: > >> I''m afraid that you just don''t know what you''re talking about, Robert >> - and IIRC I''ve corrected you on this elsewhere, so you have no excuse >> for repeating your misconceptions now. > The adage about attracting more flies with honey than vinegar applies here.I have no interest in attracting flies - and should I do so inadvertently, I swat them. Robert got off on the wrong foot in the post to which I was responding and then reasserted a misconception which I had previously corrected him on elsewhere, so I swatted him (relatively gently); later, when his tone improved, so did mine.> > Now I shall bow out of this argument entirely. If it ceases to be an > argument, though, I shall be interested in seeing what you have to > say.Difficult as it may be for you to conceive, your attention or lack thereof is not a matter of great concern to me, welcome though you are to pick up anything that might be useful to you (just as I don''t much care whether any insights I might come up with are used to improve ZFS: how good or bad ZFS turns out to be is an issue for its developers and its users to tackle). Though I''m happy to answer what questions I can if I notice them, I''m primarily here on the off-chance that I might learn something useful myself, and so far that effort has been almost completely wasted. In the process, however, I''ve encountered some crap that I decided I wouldn''t tolerate, and that''s why we''re where we are now. - bill This message posted from opensolaris.org