Isn't it possible that Apple developed this filesystem primarily to be used with their SSD based devices which are using their custom controllers, which simply takes care of this low level protection? SSD controllers are said to be very complicated piece of proprietary technologies, and I believe they are using sophisticated algorithms for integrity protection.
That'd just be going back to their historical roots. You used to only be able to buy Apple RAM and Apple drives. All parts were Apple parts, there wasn't anything else.
And look, we're already back to, you can only get RAM from Apple, because so many of their products come with it soldered on the logic board with no upgrade path.
Indeed, sure would be a shame for anything to happen to your data because you chose not to use drives equipped with iStoreSafe(tm) technology by Apple(tm).
This is bad logic. The benefits derived from additional data integrity assurances would be additive.
A special controller isn't a valid substitute for other measures apple hasn't historically been any good at designing filesystems and they aren't any good now.
Earlier cars were terrible death traps and we were told crashes at highway speeds were unsurvivable.
People died in mangled messes but the sky didn't fall then either.
The status quo is rarely a sufficient argument because the human race is pretty much terrible at everything improving things only slowly, incrementally accruing useful strategies and procedures.
We built bridges well via centuries of practice, software is less mature.
To be honest, I have a long list of friends, especially in creative professions where people struggle with setting up reliable backups. There is a reason Dropbox and other cloud drives were so successful. Any improvement on the data integrity front is very welcome.
Well, that's disappointing to hear. I've run into multiple MP3s bit-rotting on my MB air over several years. Perhaps soley the fault of HFS+, but trusting the underlying hardware just doesn't seem like a good idea.
Damaged files (that can still be read from disk without error) are more likely than not a result of bad memory. It is incredibly unlikely to have bits mutated on disk without triggering a CRC error -- approx 1 in 4 billion errors would go undetected in a CRC-32; and it has to be spread over more than 32-bits-wide. The fact that you had multiple damaged files basically guarantees that it was a faulty memory (or bus, or controller -- but not actual magnetic media corruption) issue.
ZFS can't really help you with that as the data was likely damaged in transit rather than on disk; though with its own 256 bit hash, it is likely to detect those faulty system components earlier than later.
All my memory is ECC (other than my barely-used laptop). Been there, bought the t-shirt, decided non-parity can go jump in a lake more than a decade ago.
I encountered this going through a copy of my photos stored on a pair of WD Greens using NTFS 3-4 years ago. The original copy on a ZFS machine was fine. I found a few others, and promptly stopped using those drives.
Two years ago I had repeated bursts of ZFS checksum errors from a pair of SanDisk SSDs. Evidently TRIM didn't quite work perfectly 100% of the time, and caused data corruption - luckily ZFS was always able to repair it, and it being detected meant I could do something about it early - I updated firmware and the issue went away. Last year it came back after an OS update, and I just turned TRIM off completely (I guess it was sensitive to TRIM patterns and those changed).
Last year I also had a Toshiba HDD forget how to IO properly, and got a constant stream of ZFS checksum errors from it until I yanked it from the hot-swap bay and reinserted it. It resilvered and scrubbed fine.
These aren't the only times I've seen checksum errors and silent corruption, they're just the most recent. ZFS lost a file once, and was very noisy about it - the status message for the lost metadata stayed until I recreated the pool. NTFS, UFS2, ext2, all were completely silent on the fact that they were showing me data that was clearly wrong.
I don't trust disks, or IO controllers, and I don't trust filesystems that do. Neither should you.
I also disable TRIM on all my devices. Rather I set aside 7% of disk space that I never touch. It eliminates the need for TRIM without performance degradation.
To mitigate the likeliness of damage during transit, it's recommened to use ECC memory with ZFS. I had FreeNAS running on a system with a faulty memory module. ZFS correctly discovered damage in random files I just transferred over. Luckily, it wasn't too late to replace the bad module and repeat the transfer.
Lessons learned:
- Run MemTest86 on hardware before using it as storage
- Use an FS that does checksums
Unfortunately, the latter doesn't seem to apply to APFS.
Can you always just buy ECC memory (I have DDR3, I guess it's more affordable now since it's a little bit older), or does something else (cpu, motherboard) need to support it as well?
Which is why Intel kinda sucks. It would cost them basically nothing to have ECC enabled on all of their hardware, but they insist on using it as a differentiator between server and desktop parts.
AMD (at least in the past), includes it on all parts so that it's up to the consumer to choose.
Eh, I've seen an Intel SSD 320 eat a bunch of pages and an HGST 5K4000 4TB direct thousands of writes to the wrong sectors. There are a lot of things that can go wrong with storage devices, not just the optimistic case of a bit getting flipped after being written correctly.
Aside from transferring from disk to every larger disk, how would memory corrupt an mp3? Given Apple's long-time tradition of putting metadata (playcounts/star ratings/etc) in a separate file, an mp3 on a MacOS computer is pretty much write once, read many.
Static data on a flash device (e.g. SSD) is subject to wear leveling, which is a regular re-writing process. This is counter intuitive, but makes sense.
If your flash device never moved the static data, the only flash blocks that would get wear cycles would be the flash blocks that contained dynamic (normally changed and rewritten) data. The result would be the blocks of flash that were not static would quickly wear out and the blocks of flash that were static would have a lot of unused write cycles available.
In order to use all of the wear cycles of all of the blocks, the static data has to be moved regularly so the blocks all have a (roughly) equal number of wear cycles[1]. Every time the data is moved, there is an opportunity for data corruption.
The flash data blocks (typically) have ECC (error checking and correction) which is designed to prevent data corruption. There are limitations to ECC:
* ECC can only correct a limited number of errors.
* Flash memory is not a perfect storage medium, it can "bit rot" too - the primary reason for ECC with flash is to "hide" the inherent bit rotting of flash. "MLC"[2] flash chips aggravate the problem because their margins are smaller.
* If a memory controller does a wear leveling move and the source data is bad, beyond the ability of the ECC to correct, it has no way to correct that error and (generally) has no way to inform the user that their file (system) has suffered corruption.
I add parity archives to add some redundancy to my photographs. I've done it for years, but I think it's useful not to rely on a filesystem to handle this.
For example:
par2create -r5 -n2 example.par2 *.jpg
creates two files, between them giving 5% redundancy. I think that should be more than enough to repair bitrot within a file, but depending how many photos there are, losing a whole file could be more than 5%.
par2verify example.par2
will verify, and par2repair will repair corrupted or missing files.
Ha, I thought of writing a similar ad-hoc checksuming tool so many times. I should have checked. I now wonder how feasible it is to embed them invisibly in metadata fields )
It would be neat if there was a parity scheme fast enough to preserve 2% of of all files on disk. It could even be tucked away behind savings from file-level compression.
Relatively few filesystems offer thorough data checksumming. Hardly any offer erasure coding. RAID at the filesystem layer is a bit more common, but also more inconvenient. Doing erasure coding at the file archive level rather than in the filesystem gives you the freedom to move your archives onto standard everyday filesystems and devices without silently losing the protection.
What if I use multiple computers and multiple operating systems want to be able to work on this data on them. Par2 would allow me to create the needed data on any computer and test it on any computer.
The other alternative is having a server that's up and running all the time, exposed to the internet (or complicate the setup with a VPN), so I can sync. Operations would take a long time (via the internet) or I would anyway need to transfer the data to my computer, work on it, sync it back. During this time, any protections that ZFS offers are null since anything could happen in my computer and I can't test for it locally.
ZFS is great. But it's not the answer to everything.
Yep, I had a similar thing with audio files corrupting on my old MacBook, I was using time machine to backup and guess what.... the copy in the backup was fried too!
Switched back to vinyl for my music, my 20 year old Texhnics 1210 will probably out last my current laptop and the next!
The physical vinyl won't outlast your digital, it'll just fail more gracefully, slowly losing fidelity every time you scrape it with a needle. You're just replacing a small chance of catastrophic failure with a guaranteed gradual failure.
"Record wear can be reduced to virtual insignificance, however, by the use of a high-quality, correctly adjusted turntable and tonearm, a high-compliance magnetic cartridge with a high-end stylus in good condition, and careful record handling, with non-abrasive removal of dust before playing and other cleaning if necessary."
In other words, record wear is negligible if you buy good equipment and take good care of it. Just like the risk of bit rot, catastrophic crashes etc. is negligible if you buy good storage equipment and take good care of your data (good backups etc.)
Perhaps the one big advantage of vinyl over digital is that the shelf life of unused vinyl is larger than a human lifetime. A disk stored on a shelf, however, can suffer damage in many ways and is guaranteed to be very hard to connect to your computer in ten-twenty years.
