On Feb 26, 2014, at 10:51 PM, Daniel Becker <razzf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Incidentally, that paper came up in a ZFS-related thread on Ars Technica just 
> the other day (as did the link to the FreeNAS forum post). Let me just quote 
> what I said there:
>> The conclusion of the paper is that ZFS does not protect against in-memory 
>> corruption, and thus can't provide end-to-end integrity in the presence of 
>> memory errors. I am not arguing against that at all; obviously you'll want 
>> ECC on your ZFS-based server if you value data integrity -- just as you 
>> would if you were using any other file system. That doesn't really have 
>> anything to do with the claim that ZFS specifically makes lack of ECC more 
>> likely to cause total data loss, though.
> The sections you quote below basically say that while ZFS offers good 
> protection against on-disk corruption, it does *not* effectively protect you 
> against memory errors. Or, put another way, the authors are basically finding 
> that despite all the FS-level checksumming, ZFS does not render ECC memory 
> unnecessary (as one might perhaps naively expect). No claim is being made 
> that memory errors affect ZFS more than other filesystems.

Yes. Just like anything else, end-to-end data integrity is needed. So until 
people write apps that self-check everything, there is a possibility that
something you trust [1] can fail. As it happens, only the PC market demands

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
 -- richard


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"zfs-macos" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to