So to summarize that article, "using ECC memory is safer than not using ECC
memory." I don't think this was ever in doubt. Note that he does *not* talk
about anything like the hypothetical "a scrub will corrupt all your data"
scenario (nor is anything like that mentioned in his popular "ZFS: Read Me
1st" article); in fact, the only really ZFS-specific point that he raises
at all is the part about dirty data likely being in memory (= vulnerable to
bit flips) for longer than it would be in other file systems.
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Philip Robar <philip.ro...@gmail.com>wrote:
> From Andrew Galloway of Nexenta (Whom I'm pretty sure most would accept as
> the definition of a ZFS expert.*)
> ECC vs non-ECC RAM: The Great Debate:
> * "...I've been on literally 1000's of large ZFS deployments in the last
> 2+ years, often called in when they were broken, and much of what I say is
> backed up by quite a bit of experience. This article is also often used,
> cited, reviewed, and so on by many of my fellow ZFS support personnel, so
> it gets around and mistakes in it get back to me eventually. I can be wrong
> - but especially if you're new to ZFS, you're going to be better served not
> assuming I am. :)"
> 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.
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/d/optout.