ZFS regimen: scrub, scrub, scrub and scrub again.

[Adam Nowacki]

On 2013-01-24 15:24, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> For me the reliability ZFS offers is far more important than pure
>> performance.
> Except it is on paper reliability.

This "on paper" reliability in practice saved a 20TB pool. See one of my 
previous emails. Any other filesystem or hardware/software raid without 
per-disk checksums would have failed. Silent corruption of non-important 
files would be the best case, complete filesystem death by important 
metadata corruption as the worst case.

I've been using ZFS for 3 years in many systems. Biggest one has 44 
disks and 4 ZFS pools - this one survived SAS expander disconnects, a 
few kernel panics and countless power failures (UPS only holds for a few 
hours).

So far I've not lost a single ZFS pool or any data stored.