From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 24 23:32:03 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976951D7; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:32:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ndenev@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bk0-f52.google.com (mail-bk0-f52.google.com [209.85.214.52]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0719BE1D; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id jk13so1054414bkc.11 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:31:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date :cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=hNhdEjjgWuOGeQh4UlpJcQNV1MGOZosoZxTU/uQpSn4=; b=EYInC7OLDDYM/nCBZIHB3cx1mxbNr3NWppIsFmXUUA+W7KSWOjScKtRot4sK2DqGth UojRU0BwAorsoi76bqXqiMZg8e9mELKR4kGCIRBizctW7qdQVAMKiqGoE7kuafh50lyr Hi5PY3ccYYDNFjJckZdrTx5vH2qMDJL0FkVXpQxWJyXsA/MG/s8nbJwOHjv8w6OfFx3J iYMd5EFKwRyJ1IpkN+ALgPwgiDKFLoUtgifFKmAHqbo8WiCLkjaiebOZde2eJKAXQ5oA m1BLb15kAKepBG34hNimXGN8QWFgHNxJKVn5184kIyduPIxytD8VF6B9mbqPEFjhfIgQ 6ZBg== X-Received: by 10.204.128.151 with SMTP id k23mr1333499bks.65.1359070316405; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:31:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.0.3] ([93.152.184.10]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o9sm18380914bko.15.2013.01.24.15.31.54 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:31:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: ZFS regimen: scrub, scrub, scrub and scrub again. Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Nikolay Denev In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 01:31:53 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4241CA0A-9AFC-4EB4-89B7-18BC7E645B03@gmail.com> References: <20130122073641.GH30633@server.rulingia.com> <51013345.8010701@platinum.linux.pl> To: Wojciech Puchar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:32:03 -0000 On Jan 24, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Wojciech Puchar = wrote: >>=20 > Except it is on paper reliability. This "on paper" reliability saved my ass numerous times. For example I had one home NAS server machine with flaky SATA controller = that would not detect one of the four drives from time to time on = reboot. This made my pool degraded several times, and even rebooting with let's = say disk4 failed to a situation that disk3 is failed did not corrupt any = data. I don't think this is possible with any other open source FS, let alone = hardware RAID that would drop the whole array because of this. I have never ever personally lost any data on ZFS. Yes, the performance = is another topic, and you must know what you are doing, and what is your usage pattern, but from reliability standpoint, to me ZFS looks more = durable than anything else. P.S.: My home NAS is running freebsd-CURRENT with ZFS from the first = version available. Several drives died, two times the pool was expanded by replacing all drives one by one and resilvered, no single byte lost.