[OpenIndiana-discuss] Zfs stability "Scrubs"

Roel_D openindiana at out-side.nl
Sat Oct 13 08:03:03 UTC 2012

10. If SUN had listen to the engineers instead of financials it now would have been marketleader in the server market ;-( 

Op 13 okt. 2012 om 09:56 heeft Roel_D <openindiana at out-side.nl> het volgende geschreven:

> Thank you all for the good answers!
> So if i put it all together :
> 1. ZFS is, in mirror and RAID configs, the best currently available option for reliable data
> 2. Without scrubs data is checked on every read for integrity
> 3. Unread data will not be checked for integrity
> 4. Scrubs will solve point 3.
> 5. Real servers with good hardware (HCL), ECC memory and servergrade harddisks have a very low chance of dataloss/corruption when used with ZFS.
> 6. Large modern drives with large storage like any > 750 GB hd have a higher chance for corruption
> 7. Real SAS and SCSi drives offer the best option for reliable data
> 8. So called near-line SAS drives can give problems when combined with ZFS because they haven't been tested very long
> 9. Checking your logs for hardware messages should be a daily job 
> Kind regards, 
> The out-side
> Op 13 okt. 2012 om 05:26 heeft Michael Stapleton <michael.stapleton at techsologic.com> het volgende geschreven:
>> I'm not a mathematician, but can anyone calculate the chance of the Same
>> 8K datablock on Both submirrors "Going bad" on terabyte drives, before
>> the data is ever read and fixed automatically during normal read
>> operations?
>> And if you are not doing mirroring, you have already accepted a much
>> larger margin of error for the sake of $.
>> The VAST majority of data centers are not storing data in storage that
>> does checksums to verify data, that is just the reality. Regular backups
>> and site replication rule.
>> I am Not saying scubs are a bad thing, just that they are being over
>> emphasized and some people who do not really understand are getting the
>> wrong impression that doing scrubs very often will somehow make them a
>> lot safer.
>> Scrubs help. But a lot of people who are worrying about scrubs are not
>> even doing proper backups or regular DR testing.
>> Mike
>> On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 22:36 -0400, Doug Hughes wrote:
>>> So">?}?\, a lot of people have already answered this in various ways. 
>>> I'm going to provide a little bit of direct answer and focus to some of 
>>> those other answers (and emphasis)
>>> On 10/12/2012 5:07 PM, Michael Stapleton wrote:
>>>> It is easy to understand that zfs srubs can be useful, But, How often do
>>>> we scrub or the equivalent of any other file system? UFS? VXFS?
>>>> NTFS? ...
>>>> ZFS has scrubs as a feature, but is it a need? I do not think so. Other
>>>> file systems accept the risk, mostly because they can not really do
>>>> anything if there were errors.
>>> That's right. They cannot do anything. Why is that a good thing? If you 
>>> have a corruption on your filesystem because a block or even a single 
>>> bit went wrong, wouldn't you want to know? Wouldn't you want to fix it? 
>>> What if a number in an important financial document changed? Seems 
>>> unlikely, but we've discovered at least 5 instances of spontaneous disk 
>>> data corruption over the course of a couple of years. zfs corrected them 
>>> transparently. No data lost, automatic, clean,  and transparent. The 
>>> more data that we make, the more that possibility of spontaneous data 
>>> corruption becomes reality.
>>>> It does no harm to do periodic scrubs, but I would not recommend doing
>>>> them often or even at all if scrubs get in the way of production.
>>>> What is the real risk of not doing scrubs?
>>> data changing without you knowing it. Maybe this doesn't matter on an 
>>> image file (though a jpeg could end up looking nasty or destroyed, and 
>>> mpeg4 could be permanently damaged, but in a TIFF or other uncompressed 
>>> format, you'd probably never know)
>>>> Risk can not be eliminated, and we have to accept some risk.
>>>> For example, data deduplication uses digests on data to detect
>>>> duplication. Most dedup systems assume that if the digest is the same
>>>> for two pieces of data, then the data must be the same.
>>>> This assumption is not actually true. Two differing pieces of data can
>>>> have the same digest, but the chance of this happening is so low that
>>>> the risk is accepted.
>>> but, the risk of data being flipped once you have TBs of data is way 
>>> above 0%. You can also do your own erasure coding if you like. That 
>>> would be one way to achieve the same affect outside of ZFS.
>>>> I'm only writing this because I get the feeling some people think scrubs
>>>> are a need. Maybe people associate doing scrubs with something like
>>>> doing NTFS defrags?
>>> NTFS defrag would only help with performance. scrub helps with 
>>> integrity. Totally different things.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
>>> OpenIndiana-discuss at openindiana.org
>>> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
>> OpenIndiana-discuss at openindiana.org
>> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
> OpenIndiana-discuss at openindiana.org
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss

More information about the OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list