If space is not an issue, you can also set the zfs property copies=2.
This provides some protection against unreadable blocks.
On 2017-08-05 10:54 AM, Adam Thompson wrote:
True, but it's also a journaling filesystem (effectively, even if that's not
quite the curvy technical term for it) so is far less prone to random
corruption on hard (unexpected) shutdowns / reboots.
Best of both worlds is to use ZFS boot off mirrored disks, but that also
increases cost and only protects against two common failure modes. At least
here, I lose power frequently. (For periods longer than I'm prepared to spend
on UPS to protect, thank you.) I've had corrupt filesystem once, never want
that again. I've had disk failure zero times, at least I don't waste time
debugging it when that happens.
So single-device ZFS should be an improvement over the current state of affairs
no matter what.
-Adam
On August 5, 2017 11:16:20 AM CDT, Rainer Duffner <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 05.08.2017 um 15:07 schrieb Jim Pingle <[email protected]>:
ZFS is self-healing and though we have not been able to reproduce the
corruption issues seen by some with UFS, all evidence points to ZFS
not
being susceptible to those problems.
It’s really only „self-healing“ if you have two or more disks.
That’s (one reason) why they recommend to not use hardware-RAID.
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
