On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 17:45 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 20, 2014, at 9:08 AM, George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com wrote:
After reading the recent posts on this topic I am beginning to think
there is some real confusion between check sums and parity.
Yes, I often see conventional
On Jan 27, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@kepstin.ca wrote:
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 17:45 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 20, 2014, at 9:08 AM, George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com wrote:
After reading the recent posts on this topic I am beginning to think
there is some real
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:20:22 George Mitchell wrote:
I can easily imagine btrfs
taking a system down due to memory error, but not btrfs causing data
corruption due to a memory error.
I had a system which had apparently worked OK on Ext4 but had some memory
errors. After twice having a
On Jan 20, 2014, at 9:08 AM, George Mitchell geo...@chinilu.com wrote:
After reading the recent posts on this topic I am beginning to think there is
some real confusion between check sums and parity.
Yes, I often see conventional raid6 assumed to always be capable of detecting
and
Russell Coker posted on Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:57:43 +1100 as excerpted:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:20:22 George Mitchell wrote:
I can easily imagine btrfs taking a system down due to memory error,
but not btrfs causing data corruption due to a memory error.
I had a system which had apparently
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:17:08AM +0100, George Eleftheriou wrote:
Without having further knowledge on that matter, I tend to believe
(but I hope I'm wrong) that BTRFS is as vulnerable as ZFS to memory
errors. Since I upgraded recently, it's a bit too late for purchasing
ECC-capable
On 20 Jan 2014, at 04:13, Austin S Hemmelgarn ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/19/2014 07:17 PM, George Eleftheriou wrote:
I have been wondering the same thing for quite some time after
having read this post (which makes a pretty clear case in favour of
ECC RAM)...
(apologies for messing up the threading; I thought I could get away with not
subscribing. I've subscribed now.)
Martin Steigerwald Martin at lichtvoll.de wrote:Am Samstag, 18. Januar
2014, 07:16:42 schrieb :
I think Ian refers to the slight chance that BTRFS assumes the checksum on
one
On 20/01/2014 15:57, Ian Hinder wrote:
i.e. that there is parity information stored with every piece of data,
and ZFS will correct errors automatically from the parity information.
So this is not just parity data to check correctness but there are many
more additional bits to actually
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Austin S Hemmelgarn
ahferro...@gmail.com wrote:
AFAIK, ZFS does background data scrubbing without user intervention
No, it doesn't.
BTRFS however works differently, it only scrubs data when you tell it
to. If it encounters a checksum or read error on a
After reading the recent posts on this topic I am beginning to think
there is some real confusion between check sums and parity. These
are two different things which serve two different purposes. In each
case, bad RAM would have different repercussions. But I still fail to
see how, in the
On 2014-01-20 10:36, Bob Marley wrote:
On 20/01/2014 15:57, Ian Hinder wrote:
i.e. that there is parity information stored with every piece of data,
and ZFS will correct errors automatically from the parity information.
So this is not just parity data to check correctness but there are many
Ian Hinder posted on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 15:57:42 +0100 as excerpted:
In hxxp://forums.freenas.org/threads/ecc-vs-non-ecc-ram-and-zfs.15449,
they talk about reconstructing corrupted data from parity information:
Ok, no problem. ZFS will check against its parity. Oops, the parity
failed since
Am Samstag, 18. Januar 2014, 07:16:42 schrieb Duncan:
Ian Hinder posted on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 01:23:41 +0100 as excerpted:
I have been reading a lot of articles online about the dangers of using
ZFS with non-ECC RAM. Specifically, the fact that when good data is
read from disk and compared
Just my opinion, of course, but I simply cannot imagine how an
incorrect checksum could appear correct due to a memory error. Sorry,
but I just cannot get my brain around that one. The odds against it
happening would be beyond comprehension. I can easily imagine btrfs
taking a system down
George Mitchell posted on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:20:22 -0800 as excerpted:
Just my opinion, of course, but I simply cannot imagine how an
incorrect checksum could appear correct due to a memory error. Sorry,
but I just cannot get my brain around that one. The odds against it
happening would be
Martin Steigerwald posted on Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:02:41 +0100 as excerpted:
I´d probably like if all computers had ECC RAM, but then I heard more
than once that ECC doesn´t even detect all possible memory errors.
Heh, don't I know it! I had an original generation dual socket, 3-digit
AMD
I have been wondering the same thing for quite some time after having
read this post (which makes a pretty clear case in favour of ECC
RAM)...
hxxp://forums.freenas.org/threads/ecc-vs-non-ecc-ram-and-zfs.15449/
... and the ZFS on Linux FAQ
hxxp://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#DoIHaveToUseECCMemory
to be wrong in that case than the RAM is. This assumption
falls apart though on commodity hardware (ie, no ECC RAM), hence the
warnings about using ZFS without ECC RAM.
BTRFS however works differently, it only scrubs data when you tell it
to. If it encounters a checksum or read error on a data block
Hi,
I have been reading a lot of articles online about the dangers of using ZFS
with non-ECC RAM. Specifically, the fact that when good data is read from disk
and compared with its checksum, a RAM error can cause the read data to be
incorrect, causing a checksum failure, and the bad data
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Ian Hinder ian.hin...@aei.mpg.de wrote:
Hi,
I have been reading a lot of articles online about the dangers of using ZFS
with non-ECC RAM. Specifically, the fact that when good data is read from
disk and compared with its checksum, a RAM error can cause the
On 01/17/2014 04:23 PM, Ian Hinder wrote:
Hi,
I have been reading a lot of articles online about the dangers of using ZFS with non-ECC
RAM. Specifically, the fact that when good data is read from disk and compared with its
checksum, a RAM error can cause the read data to be incorrect,
Ian Hinder posted on Sat, 18 Jan 2014 01:23:41 +0100 as excerpted:
I have been reading a lot of articles online about the dangers of using
ZFS with non-ECC RAM. Specifically, the fact that when good data is
read from disk and compared with its checksum, a RAM error can cause the
read data to
23 matches
Mail list logo
