25 ms·
Sure. Encrypted ZFS with FreeBSD, have a power loss, goodbye data. Should have read the manual though, it does tell you to make a backup of certain data ranges
by pmlnr 8y ago
Sure. Encrypted ZFS with FreeBSD, have a power loss, goodbye data.
Should have read the manual though, it does tell you to make a backup of certain data ranges in case of encrypted ZFS for this specific case, so it's partly my fault.
That said, I'm using ZFS ever since, but on top of LUKs with linux.
- _emacsomancer_ 8y agoSo LUKS is more resilient than native ZFS encryption to power loss?
- pstch 8y agoEncrypted ZFS with FreeBSD is not actually native ZFS encryption, it uses GELI to handle the encryption part (which may be why it's bad at handling power losses).
- _emacsomancer_ 8y agoAh, for some reason I was thinking that FreeBSD's implementation of OpenZFS had native encryption.
- ahnick 8y agoHopefully someday. https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/489 https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/pull/489
- BFLpL0QNek 8y agoDo you have more information on this? I've just rebuilt my home server/nas going from 2x3tb disks in a mirror no encryption to 4 x 4tb disks in a striped mirror with native ZFS encryption on ZOL. Most of my data is read only media content, 90% read use which is also extremely low io wise and write is only when adding new media. I was thinking power loss would only be an issue loosing data that is currently being written so would not corrupt the entire zpool? If native ZFS encryption can lead to loosing a zpool on powerloss I might look in to buying a used cheap Dell r210 ii, stick two 8tb drives in as a mirror then stick it in a collocation data center and use native zfs send/recv incremental snapshots for offsite. Looks to be cheaper then rsync.net $30 per TB/month for ZFS when you got 2-3TB+, also can do the initial sync locally. Still looking at $700+ a year after initial hardware costs.