Technically, what you qualify below is a truism under any hardware. ZFS is 
neither more or less susceptible to RAM failure as it has nothing to do with 
ZFS. Anything that gets written to the pool technically is sound. You have 
chosen a single possible point of failure, what of firmware, drive cache, 
motherboard, power surges, motion, etc.?

RAM/ECC RAM is like consumer drives vs pro drives in your system, recent long 
term studies have shown you don't get much more for the extra money.

I have been running ZFS in production using the past and current versions for 
OS X on over 60 systems (12 are servers) since Apple kicked ZFS loose. No 
systems (3 run ECC) have had data corruption or data loss. Some pools have 
disappeared on the older ZFS but were easily recovered on modern (current 
development) and past OpenSolaris, FreeBSD, etc., as I keep clones of 
'corrupted' pools for such tests. Almost always, these were the result of 
connector/cable failure. In that span of time no RAM has failed 'utterly' and 
all data and tests have shown quality storage. In that time 11 drives have 
failed and easily been replaced, 4 of those were OS drives, data stored under 
ZFS and a regular clone of the OS also stored under ZFS just in case. All pools 
are backed-up/replicated off site. Probably a lot more than most are doing for 
data integrity.

No this data I'm providing is not a guarantee. It's just data from someone who 
has grown to trust ZFS in the real world for clients that cannot lose data for 
the most part due to legal regulations. I trust RAM manufacturers and drive 
manufacturers equally, I just verify for peace of mind with ZFS. 

--
Jason Belec
Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Philip Robar <philip.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Richard Elling <richard.ell...@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> We might buy this argument if, in fact, no other program had the same
>> vulnerabilities. But *all* of them do -- including OSX. So it is disingenuous
>> to claim this as a ZFS deficiency.
> 
> No it's disingenuous of you to ignore the fact that I carefully qualified 
> what I said. To repeat, it's claimed with a detailed example and reasoned 
> argument that ZFS is MORE vulnerable to corruption due to memory errors when 
> using non-ECC memory and that that corruption is MORE likely to be extensive 
> or catastrophic than with other file systems.
> 
> As I said, Jason's and Daniel Becker's responses are reassuring, but I'd 
> really like a definitive answer to this so I've reached out to one of the 
> lead Open ZFS developers. Hopefully, I'll hear back from him.
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> -- 
>  
> --- 
> 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.

-- 

--- 
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