Date: Wed, 1 May 2019 09:55:54 -0400 From: Paul Mather <paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> To: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS... Message-ID: <713FB681-94F6-4F3A-AC69-417362D29B6E@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <A7928311-8F51-4C72-839C-C9C2BA62C66E@sorbs.net> References: <30506b3d-64fb-b327-94ae-d9da522f3a48@sorbs.net> <CAOtMX2gf3AZr1-QOX_6yYQoqE-H%2B8MjOWc=eK1tcwt5M3dCzdw@mail.gmail.com> <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> <CAGMYy3tYqvrKgk2c==WTwrH03uTN1xQifPRNxXccMsRE1spaRA@mail.gmail.com> <5ED8BADE-7B2C-4B73-93BC-70739911C5E3@sorbs.net> <d0118f7e-7cfc-8bf1-308c-823bce088039@denninger.net> <2e4941bf-999a-7f16-f4fe-1a520f2187c0@sorbs.net> <CAOtMX2gOwwZuGft2vPpR-LmTpMVRy6hM_dYy9cNiw%2Bg1kDYpXg@mail.gmail.com> <34539589-162B-4891-A68F-88F879B59650@sorbs.net> <CAOtMX2iB7xJszO8nT_KU%2BrFuSkTyiraMHddz1fVooe23bEZguA@mail.gmail.com> <576857a5-a5ab-eeb8-2391-992159d9c4f2@denninger.net> <A7928311-8F51-4C72-839C-C9C2BA62C66E@sorbs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 30, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> wrote: > > > Michelle Sullivan > http://www.mhix.org/ > Sent from my iPad > >> On 01 May 2019, at 01:15, Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net> wrote: >> >> >> 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 > using the complete drive.. even when there is only one disk available and > regardless of the cpu or ram class... with one usb stick I have around > here it attempted to use zfs on one of my laptops. ZFS has MUCH more to recommend it than just the "self-healing" properties discussed in this thread. Its pooled storage model, good administration and snapshot/clone support (enabling features such as boot environments) make it preferable over UFS as a default file system. You can even gain the benfits of self-healing (for silent data corruption) for single-drive systems via "copies=2" or "copies=3" on file sets. > Damned if you do, damned if you don’t comes to mind. Not really. Nobody is forcing anyone only to use ZFS as a choice of file system. As you say above, it is a default (a very sensible one, IMHO, but even then, it's not really a default). If you believe ZFS is not right for you, do a UFS installation instead. BTW, I disagree that you need top-notch server-grade hardware to use ZFS. Its design embodies the notion of being distrustful of the hardware on which it is running, and it is targeted to be able to survive consumer hardware (as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread), e.g., HBAs without BBUs. I am using ZFS on a Raspberry Pi with an external USB drive. How's that for server-grade hardware? :-) Cheers, Paul.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?713FB681-94F6-4F3A-AC69-417362D29B6E>