On Dec 2, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:On Dec 1, 2006, at 10:17 PM, Ian Collins wrote:Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:So you trust your important data to a single drive? I doubt it. But IThere is not? People buy disk drives and expect them to corrupt their data? I expect the drives I buy to work fine (knowing that there could be bugs etc in them, the same as with my RAID systems).bet you do trust your data to a hardware RAID array.Yes, but not because I expect a single drive to be more error prone (versus total failure). Total drive failure on a single disk loses all your data. But we are not talking total failure, we are talking errors that corrupt data. I buy individual drives with the expectation that they are designed to be error free and are error free for the most part and I do not expect a RAID array to be more robust in this regard (after all, the RAID is made up of a bunch of single drives).But people expect RAID to protect them from the corruption caused by a partial failure, say a bad block, which is a common failure mode.
They do? I must admit no experience with the big standalone raid array storage units, just (expensive) HW raid cards, but I have never expected an array to protect me against data corruption. Bad blocks can be detected and remapped, and maybe the array can recalculate the block from parity etc, but that is a known disk error, and not the subtle kinds of errors created by the RAID array that are being claimed here.
The worst system failure I experienced was caused by one half of a mirror experiencing bad blocks and the corrupt data being nicely mirrored on the other drive. ZFS would have saved this system from failure.
None of my comments are meant to denigrate ZFS. I am implementing it myself.
Some people on this list think that the RAID arrays are more likely to corrupt your data than JBOD (both with ZFS on top, for example, a ZFS mirror of 2 raid arrays or a JBOD mirror or raidz). There is no proof of this or even reasonable hypothetical explanation for this that I have seen presented.I don't think that the issue here, it's more one of perceived data integrity. People who have been happily using a single RAID 5 are now finding that the array has been silently corrupting their data.
They are? They are being told that the problems they are having is due to that but there is no proof. It could be a bad driver for example.
People expect errors form single drives,
They do? The tech specs show very low failure rates for single drives in terms of bit errors.
so they put them in a RAID knowing the firmware will protect them from drive errors.
The RAID firmware will not protect them from bit errors on block reads unless the disk detects that the whole block is bad. I admit not knowing how much the disk itself can detect bit errors with CRC or similar sorts of things.
They often fail to recognise that the RAID firmware may not be perfect.
ZFS, JBOS disk controllers, drivers for said disk controllers, etc may not be perfect either.
ZFS looks to be the perfect tool for mirroring hardware RAID arrays, with the advantage over other schemes of knowing which side of the mirror has an error. Thus ZFS can be used as a tool to compliment, rather than replace hardware RAID.
I agree. That is what I am doing :-) Chad
Ian
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
