Paul Mather wrote:
On Apr 30, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Michelle Sullivan <miche...@sorbs.net>
wrote:
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
Sent from my iPad
On 01 May 2019, at 01:15, Karl Denninger <k...@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? :-)
Was I drunk posting again? I thought others were advocating that server
grade hardware was suitable for ZFS and if you are using consumer grade,
you get what you pay for and dont blame ZFS etc..
This is an interesting issue... 2 thoughts of mind... ZFS safe to use
on COnsumer hardware or not? ECC necessary or not? "The data on disk
is always right" or not? .. it can't be all of the above by the very
nature of the arguments that all seem to be against me, but not against
each other... even though they are directly in conflict (and I have seen
this on other ZFS lists... usually just before or after the
justification for no 'FSCK for ZFS' (which after looking deeply into how
ZFS works, I mostly agree with - which I stated earlier) - though a 'ZFS
walk' tool may be the compromise that satisfies those who believe that
an FSCK should be available and usually have no idea why it probably can
never happen.... I will point out that someone from this thread messaged
me this: https://www.klennet.com/zfs-recovery/default.aspx - which seems
to be exactly what I'm talking about - a 'zfs walk' sorta told
however... it's winblows only ... but if it does what it says on the
packet.. this would probably be the missing link that would appease most
ZFS detractors and people like me - who think ZFS is good for those with
server grade hardware, but really not a good idea for the general linux
user... :) (*waits for the flames*)
--
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
