From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Wed May 1 01:59:44 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@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 05BF115804F6 for ; Wed, 1 May 2019 01:59:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michelle@sorbs.net) Received: from hades.sorbs.net (hades.sorbs.net [72.12.213.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9142B7147F for ; Wed, 1 May 2019 01:59:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michelle@sorbs.net) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Received: from [10.10.0.230] (gate.mhix.org [203.206.128.220]) by hades.sorbs.net (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.29.0 64bit (built Jul 9 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0PQS00M3XZINZ500@hades.sorbs.net> for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 19:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: ZFS... From: Michelle Sullivan X-Mailer: iPad Mail (16A404) In-reply-to: Date: Wed, 01 May 2019 11:59:38 +1000 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: References: <30506b3d-64fb-b327-94ae-d9da522f3a48@sorbs.net> <56833732-2945-4BD3-95A6-7AF55AB87674@sorbs.net> <3d0f6436-f3d7-6fee-ed81-a24d44223f2f@netfence.it> <17B373DA-4AFC-4D25-B776-0D0DED98B320@sorbs.net> <70fac2fe3f23f85dd442d93ffea368e1@ultra-secure.de> <70C87D93-D1F9-458E-9723-19F9777E6F12@sorbs.net> <5ED8BADE-7B2C-4B73-93BC-70739911C5E3@sorbs.net> <2e4941bf-999a-7f16-f4fe-1a520f2187c0@sorbs.net> <34539589-162B-4891-A68F-88F879B59650@sorbs.net> <576857a5-a5ab-eeb8-2391-992159d9c4f2@denninger.net> To: Karl Denninger X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9142B7147F X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of michelle@sorbs.net designates 72.12.213.40 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=michelle@sorbs.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.93 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+a:hades.sorbs.net]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[sorbs.net]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: battlestar.sorbs.net]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[40.213.12.72.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; SUBJ_ALL_CAPS(0.45)[6]; IP_SCORE(-0.64)[ip: (-1.67), ipnet: 72.12.192.0/19(-0.82), asn: 11114(-0.64), country: US(-0.06)]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.54)[-0.538,0]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11114, ipnet:72.12.192.0/19, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 May 2019 01:59:44 -0000 Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/ Sent from my iPad > On 01 May 2019, at 11:33, Karl Denninger wrote: >=20 >=20 >> On 4/30/2019 19:14, Michelle Sullivan wrote: >>=20 >> Michelle Sullivan >> http://www.mhix.org/ >> Sent from my iPad >>=20 >>> On 01 May 2019, at 01:15, Karl Denninger wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> IMHO non-ECC memory systems are ok for personal desktop and laptop >>> machines where loss of stored data requiring a restore is acceptable >>> (assuming you have a reasonable backup paradigm for same) but not for >>> servers and *especially* not for ZFS storage. I don't like the price of= >>> ECC memory and I really don't like Intel's practices when it comes to >>> only enabling ECC RAM on their "server" class line of CPUs either but it= >>> is what it is. Pay up for the machines where it matters. >> And the irony is the FreeBSD policy to default to zfs on new installs usi= ng the complete drive.. even when there is only one disk available and regar= dless of the cpu or ram class... with one usb stick I have around here it a= ttempted to use zfs on one of my laptops. >>=20 >> Damned if you do, damned if you don=E2=80=99t comes to mind. >>=20 > Nope. I'd much rather *know* the data is corrupt and be forced to > restore from backups than to have SILENT corruption occur and perhaps > screw me 10 years down the road when the odds are my backups have > long-since been recycled. Ahh yes the be all and end all of ZFS.. stops the silent corruption of data.= . but don=E2=80=99t install it on anything unless it=E2=80=99s server grade w= ith backups and ECC RAM, but it=E2=80=99s good on laptops because it protect= s you from silent corruption of your data when 10 years later the backups ha= ve long-since been recycled... umm is that not a circular argument? Don=E2=80=99t get me wrong here.. and I know you (and some others are) zfs i= n the DC with 10s of thousands in redundant servers and/or backups to keep y= our critical data corruption free =3D good thing. ZFS on everything is what some say (because it prevents silent corruption) b= ut then you have default policies to install it everywhere .. including hard= ware not equipped to function safely with it (in your own arguments) and yet= it=E2=80=99s still good because it will still prevent silent corruption eve= n though it relies on hardware that you can trust... umm say what? Anyhow veered way way off (the original) topic... Modest (part consumer grade, part commercial) suffered irreversible data los= s because of a (very unusual, but not impossible) double power outage.. and n= o tools to recover the data (or part data) unless you have some form of back= up because the file system deems the corruption to be too dangerous to let y= ou access any of it (even the known good bits) ... =20 Michelle > Karl Denninger > karl@denninger.net > /The Market Ticker/ > /[S/MIME encrypted email preferred]/