undefined | Better HN

0 pointsHavoc4y ago0 comments

>This seems very unlikely

That's what I thought given that it does have a good rep.

Haven't given up on it yet, but definitely less trusting - 3 different drives in 3 different ways wasn't expected.

That said - all consumer class gear in janky environments so there may very well be other factors lurking.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

ek7504y ago· 1 in thread

What was the layout of the ZFS pools? I've been using RAIDZ1 and RAIDZ2 for years now on ubuntu, and luckily have not detected any errors on my monthly scrubs. I did have bitrot on older drives previously when I just relied on EXT4, only to find out when trying to access an old file.

I'm using a Supermicro board, with ECC RAM, but anywhere from 4 to 6 drives in the pool (upgraded over 6 or 7 years now).

kaba04y ago

To my knowledge ZFS indeed has a very very good track record, but Ubuntu did have an incorrect patch for it at a time, as I was enlightened by this comment in the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31292568

Perhaps ubuntu was the culprit, not ZFS?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse