On 2014.11.29 09:06, Jeremy MountainJohnson wrote: > That said, I attended last years presentation on ZFS, and have even > played around a little with thumb drives and Linux on ZFS with no > issues. The server supports ECC, however I already purchased the RAM > for it as non-ECC and 16 gigs worth, so I'd hate to throw away that > investment to purchase more expensive ECC. Is it worth considering > even using ZFS on Linux with non-ECC? The presentation leaned toward > no, and that is the general consensus I'm seeing on forums. So, > perhaps stick to a software Linux raid6? No. Didn't I just dispel this silly myth a week ago on this list? Memory failure is going to ruin your day. It's that simple. Other software RAID systems and filesystems are NOT going to make bad memory suddenly start giving correct data again. In fact, they are mostly just going to hum along with corrupt data, oblivious to the problem (depending on the severity of the issues in RAM). ZFS has a fighting chance at saving some of your data, whereas others don't. If you are that concerned, go buy ECC RAM. Linda isn't saying "don't use ZFS", she's saying "do use ECC RAM". In the combination of bad RAM corrupting your data and ZFS trying to save it, ZFS is not the problem. > Based on a lot of recent tests, I'll probably go with Western Digital > drives for the cost savings and longevity, unless anyone has other > suggestions? I would suggest WD Reds unless performance is a big factor. Of "you can have cheap, reliable, or fast, pick two", they are cheap and reliable. IIRC, WD Blacks are good too, being reliable and fast.