From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sat Jan 5 03:05:05 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D6E1485A93 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 03:05:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jjohnstone.nospamfreebsd@tridentusa.com) Received: from mail.tridentusa.com (mail.tridentusa.com [96.225.19.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B174092879 for ; Sat, 5 Jan 2019 03:04:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jjohnstone.nospamfreebsd@tridentusa.com) Received: (qmail 39192 invoked by uid 1002); 5 Jan 2019 03:04:48 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Diagnostics: from mail.tridentusa.com by smtprelay.tridentusa.com (envelope-from , uid 7791) with qmail-scanner-2.11 (clamdscan: 0.100.2/25269. spamassassin: 3.4.2. Clear:RC:1(172.16.0.32):. Processed in 0.036486 secs); 05 Jan 2019 03:04:48 -0000 Received: from mail.tridentusa.com (172.16.0.32) de/crypted with TLSv1: DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA [256/256] DN=none by smtprelay.tridentusa.com with ESMTPS; 5 Jan 2019 03:04:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 23787 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2019 22:04:48 -0500 Received: from john-j.tridentusa.com (HELO ?172.16.0.90?) (jjohnstone@tridentusa.com@172.16.0.90) by mail.tridentusa.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 4 Jan 2019 22:04:48 -0500 Subject: Re: ZFS vs hardware RAID [freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 760, Issue 6] To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <00fa089b-d736-e535-6073-2fd48126121f@googlemail.com> <20190104155750.GA48956@neutralgood.org> <68188ee5-14f1-47a6-f4d8-fd049102f12c@googlemail.com> <20190104194832.13fcd66afc80d368d6bc496c@sohara.org> From: John Johnstone Message-ID: <0c6ecb00-4bea-2280-dd0c-e5540fa502ab@tridentusa.com> Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2019 22:04:25 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190104194832.13fcd66afc80d368d6bc496c@sohara.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B174092879 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of jjohnstone.nospamfreebsd@tridentusa.com designates 96.225.19.3 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jjohnstone.nospamfreebsd@tridentusa.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.01 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.62)[-0.618,0]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[tridentusa.com]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.84)[-0.840,0]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[mail1.tridentusa.com,mail.tridentusa.com]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.07)[-0.074,0]; IP_SCORE(-0.17)[asn: 701(-0.75), country: US(-0.08)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:701, ipnet:96.225.0.0/17, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2019 03:05:05 -0000 On 1/4/2019 2:48 PM, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 16:14:06 +0000 > Dave B via freebsd-questions wrote: > >> Understood re what ZFS can do, much the same as high end hardware >> controllers with their own embedded software (BIOS) then. > > I have never seen a hardware raid with block checksums and > automatic repair of silent corruption. Maybe it happened but you never had the opportunity to know about it. Couldn't a controller have repaired it without you knowing about it? Generally speaking the functionality inside all hardware RAID controllers is proprietary. By specs and descriptions you can know a lot about them but much of it isn't easily understood. Corrections done by the controllers and disks can be inferred by retrieving the hardware statistics (smartmontools, vendor supplied utilities, LSI, HP, IBM etc) but it's not easily interpreted. Don't want to contribute to starting a long debate about ZFS vs hardware RAID but I think it should be pointed out that hardware RAID design, as in that implemented in a HBA, has had something typically called patrol read for quite a long time. The idea being that on an ongoing basis the RAID controller periodically on its own reads the disk to detect and correct problems via ECC and utilizes spare sectors. This isn't identical to the process that ZFS uses but it does offer a significant level of protection. The patrol read concept makes it less likely for any corruption to be undetected or "silent". I think it's useful to remember too that SAN level functionality grew out of RAID HBA designs. ZFS grew out of implementing SAN concepts in host-based software. In my opinion, if you look in detail at RAID in hardware, both HBA and SAN, and ZFS, there are a lot more similarities that most people recognize. I'm not saying ZFS doesn't have advantages but in a lot of cases they aren't looked at realistically. - John J.