Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 21:19:41 -0400 From: Paul Kraus <paul@kraus-haus.org> To: FreeBSD Questions !!!! <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: ZFS under FreeBSD failure modes Message-ID: <BDD126F3-3DF2-4A96-A3CD-9C2C8CE220FE@kraus-haus.org> In-Reply-To: <20140802213848.GC77128@neutralgood.org> References: <53DAFCF2.2070909@hiwaay.net> <alpine.BSF.2.11.1407312131550.50731@wonkity.com> <53DB9797.1010702@hiwaay.net> <20140801164335.GA16376@slackbox.erewhon.home> <53DBF71D.3080807@hiwaay.net> <20140801232843.GB17393@slackbox.erewhon.home> <53DCF32A.30700@hiwaay.net> <20140802185442.GA28910@slackbox.erewhon.home> <53DD533D.7090700@hiwaay.net> <alpine.BSF.2.11.1408021524130.36114@wonkity.com> <20140802213848.GC77128@neutralgood.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 2, 2014, at 17:38, kpneal@pobox.com wrote: > I'd be careful running ZFS on a machine that lacks ECC memory. Lots of > people do it, but I'd be worried that ZFS would get itself into a = state > where you couldn't access anything. I am startring to see comments like this on a more frequent basis. What = is the failure mechanism you expect to run into here? > UFS I believe handles some kinds of > damage better than ZFS. Can you please be specific. I reed asking this question in another = thread and just received snide comments back. What *specific* failure = modes, and I am looking for technical details here, does UFS handle = better than ZFS and why? What is it about ZFS that does not handle that = failure? > When was the last time anyone heard of a UFS file > system being so damaged that it couldn't be recovered? Anecdotal evidence at best. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence that ZFS = never looses data. I don=92t claim it as fact.=20 In the early years of ZFS (and in the early years of ZFS under FreeBSD) = it was much more picky about how you did things. One example; an = absolute rule of mine was to never, ever relocate drives from an = IMPORTED zpool. I had seen too many reports of zpools being corrupted or = otherwise rendered unable to be mounted when drives were moved around. = Both the ZFS code and the underlying device driver code is much better = today, so it is much less of an issue (but I still try to avoid it, I = EXPORT the pool before I make any hardware changes). -- Paul Kraus paul@kraus-haus.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BDD126F3-3DF2-4A96-A3CD-9C2C8CE220FE>