From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jan 24 14:54:34 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4F2B98;
 Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:54:34 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from nowakpl@platinum.linux.pl)
Received: from platinum.linux.pl (platinum.edu.pl [81.161.192.4])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDC46CFF;
 Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:54:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by platinum.linux.pl (Postfix, from userid 87)
 id 1BF1147E11; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:54:32 +0100 (CET)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on platinum.linux.pl
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL
 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from [10.255.0.2] (unknown [83.151.38.73])
 by platinum.linux.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C7BC447DE6;
 Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:54:31 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <51014B28.8070404@platinum.linux.pl>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:54:32 +0100
From: Adam Nowacki <nowakpl@platinum.linux.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
Subject: Re: ZFS regimen: scrub, scrub, scrub and scrub again.
References: <CACpH0Mf6sNb8JOsTzC+WSfQRB62+Zn7VtzEnihEKmEV2aO2p+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301211201570.9447@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
 <20130122073641.GH30633@server.rulingia.com>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301232121430.1659@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
 <51013345.8010701@platinum.linux.pl>
 <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301241523570.5666@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1301241523570.5666@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
 <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:54:34 -0000

On 2013-01-24 15:24, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> For me the reliability ZFS offers is far more important than pure
>> performance.
> Except it is on paper reliability.

This "on paper" reliability in practice saved a 20TB pool. See one of my 
previous emails. Any other filesystem or hardware/software raid without 
per-disk checksums would have failed. Silent corruption of non-important 
files would be the best case, complete filesystem death by important 
metadata corruption as the worst case.

I've been using ZFS for 3 years in many systems. Biggest one has 44 
disks and 4 ZFS pools - this one survived SAS expander disconnects, a 
few kernel panics and countless power failures (UPS only holds for a few 
hours).

So far I've not lost a single ZFS pool or any data stored.