4 ms·
The whole ECC is required by ZFS is a bit misunderstanding. ZFS puts guarantees that your data will be safe, but if has no power to help you if your data gets
by takeda 11y ago
The whole ECC is required by ZFS is a bit misunderstanding.
ZFS puts guarantees that your data will be safe, but if has no power to help you if your data gets corrupted in memory.
The ECC is the last piece needed to guarantee data safety.
So if you don't have ECC your data is still safer with ZFS than traditional file-systems, ECC just increases the safety further.
- duaneb 11y agoHow does corrupted memory affect ZFS's performance? Much of the replication state is stored in memory; is it possible you could lose data from a single bit being flipped?
- lomnakkus 11y agoAFAIUI, yes. If a single bit in the root's checksum is flipped just before being written to disk you'll probably lose the whole file system.
- empthought 11y agoYou understand incorrectly. http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1235679&p=26303271#p26303271 http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1235679&p=2... http://jrs-s.net/2015/02/03/will-zfs-and-non-ecc-ram-kill-your-data/ http://jrs-s.net/2015/02/03/will-zfs-and-non-ecc-ram-kill-yo... http://blog.brianmoses.net/2014/03/why-i-chose-non-ecc-ram-for-my-freenas.html http://blog.brianmoses.net/2014/03/why-i-chose-non-ecc-ram-f... etc.
- lomnakkus 11y agoCould you be more specific? You seem to just be linking to random posts about ECC vs. non-ECC. I don't see anything specifically there about the root of the file system. (I'll happily grant that this scenario is so unlikely as to be impossible for all practical purposes, but having skimmed the stuff you linked to I don't see why it couldn't happen theoretically.)
- ryao 11y agoIf I were creative, I could probably kill any filesystem with 1 bit flip if I could control the bit.