This article seems to disagree with you : http://jrs-s.net/2015/02/03/will-zfs-and-non-ecc-ram-kill-your-data/
I know and i won't be using zfs on hardware raid anyway. My issue here is hardware compatibility as i don't have enough sata ports to run my disks on my motherboard. Either i run pure hardware raid or hba + zfs, just need to be sure of the card. zfs performance cost is not an issue when you have a high end desktop imo. 2016-02-01 18:39 GMT+01:00 Gordon Messmer <gordon.mess...@gmail.com>: > On 02/01/2016 08:33 AM, thibaut noah wrote: > >> Yeah i saw some build reviews on freenas, they recommend ecc but it is >> not mandatory (and actually after reading some tests i don't get all the >> fuss on ecc ram). >> > > Just as with disks, bits can flip in RAM. Probably the most important > feature of ZFS is checksums on all blocks so that bit flips can be detected > and repaired. ECC RAM does the same for memory. If you don't have ECC > RAM, and bits flip in memory, you're likely to silently corrupt data. > > Saw that too and i don't get it, i mean, what the hell? You can replace >> disks with bigger one but you'll have all this trouble if you want to >> expand the array? That doesn't feel right. >> > > The same is true of any disk array, I'd think. If you replace a disk, you > need to rebuild the array. The array size is determined by the smallest > member in the array. Given those two constraints, there's nothing unusual > about the process. > > Thing is spending 600+$$ on a nas doesn't seem worth it compared to buying >> an high end raid card. >> > > ZFS (and btrfs) and hardware RAID are not, in my opinion, comparable. > RAID arrays don't keep checksum information on each block, so if a bit > flips they don't have a means of reliably repairing it. ZFS can repair bit > flips. You probably don't want to use ZFS on hardware RAID, since many of > ZFS' features rely on accessing each disk individually. A battery backed > write cache can be useful, but I don't think it's better than having a UPS > that's monitored. > > Also it's either having a second case or buying a dual system case which >> cost more than 500$$, those guys... >> Spending much money on a raid card also seem like spending money for >> nothing too as it seems i'll have better performances with hba card + zfs >> that using a raid card. (did some research meanwhile) >> > > It's possible, but I don't think that's necessarily true. ZFS' features > come at a performance cost, in general. > > > -- > users mailing list > users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org >
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
