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 read data to > be incorrect, causing a checksum failure, and the bad data might now be > written back to the disk in an attempt to correct it, corrupting it in the > process. This would be exacerbated by a scrub, which could run through all > your data and potentially corrupt it. There is a strong current of opinion > that using ZFS without ECC RAM is "suicide for your data".
That sounds entirely silly: a scrub will only write data to the disk that has actually passed a checksum. In order for that to corrupt something on disk, you'd have to have a perfect storm of correct and corrupt reads, and in every such case thta I can think of, you'd be worse off without checksums than if you had them. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
