Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/ Sent from my iPad> On 01 May 2019, at 01:15, Karl Denninger <karl at denninger.net> wrote: > > > IMHO non-ECC memory systems are ok for personal desktop and laptop > machines where loss of stored data requiring a restore is acceptable > (assuming you have a reasonable backup paradigm for same) but not for > servers and *especially* not for ZFS storage. I don't like the price of > ECC memory and I really don't like Intel's practices when it comes to > only enabling ECC RAM on their "server" class line of CPUs either but it > is what it is. Pay up for the machines where it matters.And the irony is the FreeBSD policy to default to zfs on new installs using the complete drive.. even when there is only one disk available and regardless of the cpu or ram class... with one usb stick I have around here it attempted to use zfs on one of my laptops. Damned if you do, damned if you don?t comes to mind. Michelle
On 4/30/2019 19:14, Michelle Sullivan wrote:> > Michelle Sullivan > http://www.mhix.org/ > Sent from my iPad > >> On 01 May 2019, at 01:15, Karl Denninger <karl at denninger.net> wrote: >> >> >> IMHO non-ECC memory systems are ok for personal desktop and laptop >> machines where loss of stored data requiring a restore is acceptable >> (assuming you have a reasonable backup paradigm for same) but not for >> servers and *especially* not for ZFS storage. I don't like the price of >> ECC memory and I really don't like Intel's practices when it comes to >> only enabling ECC RAM on their "server" class line of CPUs either but it >> is what it is. Pay up for the machines where it matters. > And the irony is the FreeBSD policy to default to zfs on new installs using the complete drive.. even when there is only one disk available and regardless of the cpu or ram class... with one usb stick I have around here it attempted to use zfs on one of my laptops. > > Damned if you do, damned if you don?t comes to mind. >Nope.? I'd much rather *know* the data is corrupt and be forced to restore from backups than to have SILENT corruption occur and perhaps screw me 10 years down the road when the odds are my backups have long-since been recycled. -- Karl Denninger karl at denninger.net <mailto:karl at denninger.net> /The Market Ticker/ /[S/MIME encrypted email preferred]/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4897 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20190430/a65fcea2/attachment.bin>
On Apr 30, 2019, at 8:14 PM, Michelle Sullivan <michelle at sorbs.net> wrote:> > > Michelle Sullivan > http://www.mhix.org/ > Sent from my iPad > >> On 01 May 2019, at 01:15, Karl Denninger <karl at denninger.net> wrote: >> >> >> IMHO non-ECC memory systems are ok for personal desktop and laptop >> machines where loss of stored data requiring a restore is acceptable >> (assuming you have a reasonable backup paradigm for same) but not for >> servers and *especially* not for ZFS storage. I don't like the price of >> ECC memory and I really don't like Intel's practices when it comes to >> only enabling ECC RAM on their "server" class line of CPUs either but it >> is what it is. Pay up for the machines where it matters. > > And the irony is the FreeBSD policy to default to zfs on new installs > using the complete drive.. even when there is only one disk available and > regardless of the cpu or ram class... with one usb stick I have around > here it attempted to use zfs on one of my laptops.ZFS has MUCH more to recommend it than just the "self-healing" properties discussed in this thread. Its pooled storage model, good administration and snapshot/clone support (enabling features such as boot environments) make it preferable over UFS as a default file system. You can even gain the benfits of self-healing (for silent data corruption) for single-drive systems via "copies=2" or "copies=3" on file sets.> Damned if you do, damned if you don?t comes to mind.Not really. Nobody is forcing anyone only to use ZFS as a choice of file system. As you say above, it is a default (a very sensible one, IMHO, but even then, it's not really a default). If you believe ZFS is not right for you, do a UFS installation instead. BTW, I disagree that you need top-notch server-grade hardware to use ZFS. Its design embodies the notion of being distrustful of the hardware on which it is running, and it is targeted to be able to survive consumer hardware (as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread), e.g., HBAs without BBUs. I am using ZFS on a Raspberry Pi with an external USB drive. How's that for server-grade hardware? :-) Cheers, Paul.
Hi!> Am 01.05.2019 um 02:14 schrieb Michelle Sullivan <michelle at sorbs.net>: > And the irony is the FreeBSD policy to default to zfs on new installs using the complete drive.. even when there is only one disk available and regardless of the cpu or ram class... with one usb stick I have around here it attempted to use zfs on one of my laptops.But *any* filesystem other than ZFS on a single disk and non-ECC memory is worse! So what?s gained by defaulting back to UFS in these cases? There?s the edge case of embedded/very low memory systems but people who build these probably know what they are doing? And of course I use UFS in VMs running on a host with ZFS ? depending on whether I need the snapshot/replication features in the guest or not. Kind regards, Patrick -- punkt.de GmbH Internet - Dienstleistungen - Beratung Kaiserallee 13a Tel.: 0721 9109-0 Fax: -100 76133 Karlsruhe info at punkt.de http://punkt.de AG Mannheim 108285 Gf: Juergen Egeling