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 <rai...@ultra-secure.de> 
wrote:
Am 05.08.2017 um 15:07 schrieb Jim Pingle <li...@pingle.org>:

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

Reply via email to