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  can fail. As it happens, only the PC market demands
no ECC. TANSTAAFL.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.