4 ms·
It makes sense to this degree only, if you DONT use ECC no matter where you are using ZFS you are introducing potential checksum errors in the data path. ECC is
by X86BSD 9y ago
It makes sense to this degree only, if you DONT use ECC no matter where you are using ZFS you are introducing potential checksum errors in the data path. ECC is not that much more than normal ram. To me it makes no sense to run ZFS even if in some tiny home NAS and leave the data path vulnerable to corruption of any kind. Why bother with ZFS at all if you don’t want complete protection? That’s just bizarre.
- tmikaeld 9y agoThis, same reason i don't understand why scaleway don't use ECC RAM on production servers. It's that important, I've seen corrupt RAM write bad data too many times and I don't even have thousands of servers...
- empthought 9y agoNo it’s not. I might want instant rollback on large databases on a development machine. Others might want transparent compression and send/receive on a small device. Neither has anything to do with “complete protection” yet both are easy to accomplish with ZFS. There are a whole slew of reasons to run ZFS outside of mass redundant storage with “complete protection.” The decision to use ECC or not has nothing to do with ZFS. You may as well ask someone who is building an ext4 file server machine whether they “used ECC RAM”; it’s just as relevant. Yet no one does that for EXT4 and they do it all the time for ZFS, because of one stupid post on the FreeNAS forums that has been roundly debunked a half-dozen times.