Apparently one of the devs did comment on this subject. Matthew
Ahrens, one of the cofounders of ZFS at Sun Microsystems, stated, “There’s
nothing special about ZFS that requires/encourages the use of ECC RAM more
so than any other filesystem.” He said it on an Arstechnica
forum:
http://arst
> Hi Phil,
>
I know this is an old thread, but I didn't see where you ever got word back
from the Open ZFS dev team, and this is an issue I feel needs to be
address. I am a software engineer, and I have many years of experience
working with ZFS. Though admittedly I have not worked on ZFS d
I have no dog in this fight, but I wonder if possibly the late discovery of
the need for ECC was a factor in Apple's abandoning the ZFS project.
Unlikely they'd want to reengineer all their machines for it.
--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"zf
On Tuesday, April 1, 2014 12:07:29 AM UTC-4, Gregg wrote:
>
> The long and the short of it, is that most likely you have a failing
> disk or controller/connector more than anything. I used to run an 8-disk,
> 4 mirrored pair pool on a small box without good airflow and slow, SATA-150
> contr
The long and the short of it, is that most likely you have a failing disk or
controller/connector more than anything. I used to run an 8-disk, 4 mirrored
pair pool on a small box without good airflow and slow, SATA-150 controllers
that were supported by Solaris 10. I ended up replacing the who
On Monday, March 31, 2014 9:10:49 PM UTC-4, jasonbelec wrote:
>
> As one who has gone through all kinds of permutations to 'corrupt' data
> under ZFS, I'm calling BS on the RAM as the culprit. As Bjoern mentioned it
> sounds like connector issues, something I've seen a lot. However depending
>
On Monday, March 31, 2014 5:55:21 PM UTC-4, Daniel Becker wrote:
>
> On Mar 31, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Eric Jaw >
> wrote:
>
> Doing a scrub is just obliterating my pool.
>
>
> Is it? I don’t think so:
>
Thanks for the response! Here's some more details on the setup:
https://forums.virtualbox.org/
On Monday, March 31, 2014 5:53:59 PM UTC-4, Bjoern Kahl wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am 31.03.14 23:23, schrieb Eric Jaw:
> > I completely agree. I'm experiencing these issues currently.
> > Largely.
> >
> > Doing a scrub is just obliterating my pool.
> >
As one who has gone through all kinds of permutations to 'corrupt' data under
ZFS, I'm calling BS on the RAM as the culprit. As Bjoern mentioned it sounds
like connector issues, something I've seen a lot. However depending how you set
your pool up, your data may be difficult to access but most l
On Mar 31, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Eric Jaw wrote:
> Doing a scrub is just obliterating my pool.
Is it? I don’t think so:
> scan: scrub in progress since Mon Mar 31 10:14:52 2014
> 1.83T scanned out of 2.43T at 75.2M/s, 2h17m to go
> 0 repaired, 75.55% done
Note the “0 repaired.”
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 31.03.14 23:23, schrieb Eric Jaw:
> I completely agree. I'm experiencing these issues currently.
> Largely.
>
> Doing a scrub is just obliterating my pool.
>
>
> scan: scrub in progress since Mon Mar 31 10:14:52 2014
>> 1.83T scanned out of 2.43T
I completely agree. I'm experiencing these issues currently. Largely.
Doing a scrub is just obliterating my pool.
scan: scrub in progress since Mon Mar 31 10:14:52 2014
> 1.83T scanned out of 2.43T at 75.2M/s, 2h17m to go
> 0 repaired, 75.55% done
> config:
>
> NAME
12 matches
Mail list logo