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 STATE READ WRITE CKSUM > moon ONLINE 0 0 91 > mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 110 > diskid/DISK-VB92cae47b-31125427p1 ONLINE 0 0 112 > diskid/DISK-VBd1496f13-1a733a17p1 ONLINE 0 0 114 > mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 72 > diskid/DISK-VB343ad927-b4a3f4f8p1 ONLINE 0 0 77 > diskid/DISK-VB245c2429-c36e13b0p1 ONLINE 0 0 74 > logs > diskid/DISK-VB98bcd93f-cdf5113fp1 ONLINE 0 0 0 > cache > diskid/DISK-VB56c14272-ddacbe50p1 ONLINE 0 0 0 > > errors: 43 data errors, use '-v' for a list > I'm using RAM that is definitely non-ECC. They are: + OCZ Reaper HPC DDR3 PC3-12800 (ocz3rpr1600lv2g) 3x2GB + Corsair Vengeance (cmz12gx3m3a1600c9) 3x4GB I'm also running ZFS on FreeBSD 10.0 (RELEASE) in VirtualBox on Windows 7 Ultimate. Things seem to be pointing to non-ECC RAM causing checksum errors. It looks like I'll have to swap out my memory to ECC RAM if I want to continue this project, otherwise the data is pretty much hosed right now. On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 8:56:50 PM UTC-5, Philip Robar wrote: > > Please note, I'm not trolling with this message. I worked in Sun's OS/Net > group and am a huge fan of ZFS. > > The leading members of the FreeNAS community make it > clear<http://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/ecc-vs-non-ecc-ram-and-zfs.15449/> >  (with > a detailed explanation and links to reports of data loss) that if you use > ZFS without ECC RAM that there is a very good chance that you will > eventually experience a total loss of your data without any hope of > recovery.  (Unless you have literally thousands of dollars to spend on > that recovery. And even then there's no guarantee of said recovery.) The > features of ZFS, checksumming and scrubbing, work together to silently > spread the damage done by cosmic rays and/or bad memory throughout a file > system and this corruption then spreads to your backups. > > Given this, aren't the various ZFS communities--particularly those that > are small machine oriented --other than FreeNAS (and even they don't say > it as strongly enough in their docs), doing users a great disservice by > implicitly encouraging them to use ZFS w/o ECC RAM or on machines that > can't use ECC RAM? > > As an indication of how persuaded I've been for the need of ECC RAM, I've > shut down my personal server and am not going to access that data until > I've built a new machine with ECC RAM. > > Phil > >  ECC vs non-ECC RAM and ZFS: > http://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/ecc-vs-non-ecc-ram-and-zfs.15449/ > >  cyberjock: "So when you read about how using ZFS is an "all or none" > I'm not just making this up. I'm really serious as it really does work that > way. ZFS either works great or doesn't work at all. That really truthfully > [is] how it works." > >  ZFS-macos, NAS4Free, PC-BSD, ZFS on Linux > > -- --- 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/d/optout.