3 ms·
This seems very unlikely without a lot of contributing factors. Unless you weren't running any RAID in which case ZFS didn't lose you data but it would've been
by XorNot 5y ago
This seems very unlikely without a lot of contributing factors. Unless you weren't running any RAID in which case ZFS didn't lose you data but it would've been quite upfront about corruption when it happened.
- Havoc 5y ago>This seems very unlikely That's what I thought given that it does have a good rep. Haven't given up on it yet, but definitely less trusting - 3 different drives in 3 different ways wasn't expected. That said - all consumer class gear in janky environments so there may very well be other factors lurking.
- ek750 5y agoWhat was the layout of the ZFS pools? I've been using RAIDZ1 and RAIDZ2 for years now on ubuntu, and luckily have not detected any errors on my monthly scrubs. I did have bitrot on older drives previously when I just relied on EXT4, only to find out when trying to access an old file. I'm using a Supermicro board, with ECC RAM, but anywhere from 4 to 6 drives in the pool (upgraded over 6 or 7 years now).
- kaba0 5y agoTo my knowledge ZFS indeed has a very very good track record, but Ubuntu did have an incorrect patch for it at a time, as I was enlightened by this comment in the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31292568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31292568 Perhaps ubuntu was the culprit, not ZFS?