Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:37:32 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Ronald Klop <ronald-lists@klop.ws>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: How to speed up slow zpool scrub? Message-ID: <169a2eb9-621f-4fc8-982d-9550ee9581cb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <op.ygoqhgabkndu52@ronaldradial.radialsg.local> References: <381846248.2672053.1461695277122.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <381846248.2672053.1461695277122.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <1461736217.1121.17.camel@michaeleichorn.com> <alpine.GSO.2.20.1604290821210.23612@freddy.simplesystems.org> <08d59afe-c835-fa8d-0e52-78afcb1cc030@denninger.net> <op.ygoqhgabkndu52@ronaldradial.radialsg.local>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29/04/2016 17:28, Ronald Klop wrote: > Just like UFS makes an assumption about correct memory and correct disks? > > ECC helps ZFS as much as ECC helps UFS. > And without ECC ZFS provides more failsafes than UFS. But nothing is perfect. > You guys make it sound like ZFS has no added benefits if you don't use ECC, > which is not true. > > UFS < ZFS < ZFS+ECC > And UFS+ECC is somewhere in between probably. > As long as people understand the risks/benefits things are ok. One thing to keep in mind is that ZFS on-disk structures are much more complex than those of UFS. It is much harder to recover from some ZFS failure modes. (And there is no zfsck...) -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?169a2eb9-621f-4fc8-982d-9550ee9581cb>