Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 20:26:29 +1000 From: andrew clarke <mail@ozzmosis.com> To: Aaron <drizzt321@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS root on single SSD? Message-ID: <20170518102629.jtdoihm7aw2a5jjt@ozzmosis.com> In-Reply-To: <CAEsW2o9xDtD%2BK0=BsNhWgWn%2BJr1Os38Eu-6yJzO-uzAXrLfDBA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEsW2o88qA_YGxHC%2B5nWsi90yJfXKkCSV7tACstK6_hLNgu4HQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170516222456.q3wuwlthgpoup7md@ozzmosis.com> <CAEsW2o9xDtD%2BK0=BsNhWgWn%2BJr1Os38Eu-6yJzO-uzAXrLfDBA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue 2017-05-16 16:00:15 UTC-0700, Aaron (drizzt321@gmail.com) wrote: > I think most modern SSDs have pretty good checks because of how they use > MLC/TLC NAND and how it fails. The biggest thing I can think of is a > controller/board failure, rather than suddenly having massive number of > blocks fail. However, it is a point that without copies=2 (or more) while > bit-rot/corruption would be detectable, it wouldn't be possible to > re-construct the bad blocks. Hmm, yes. How likely is a controller board failure, though? No more likely than a HDD controller failure, I'd have thought. > Side note, copies=2 resiliency test ( > http://jrs-s.net/2016/05/09/testing-copies-equals-n-resiliency/), rather > interesting, although I probably won't be using it, at least not for an SSD. Ah, this is something I was wanting to experiment with for a few years but never got around to it. The only difference was I would've written the file corruption program in Python! :-) Good stuff. Regards Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170518102629.jtdoihm7aw2a5jjt>