looks like cyberjock is spreading information that are not true and apparently he doesnt understand concept in the details.. I use pc for more then 25y, never with ecc and never occured any fs corruption because of ram.
Actually, you don't know that. If you want a more honest evaluation, read this and my comments:
Matthew Ahrens said
“There’s nothing special about ZFS that requires/encourages the use of ECC RAM more so than any other filesystem.”
That's almost true, even. The one special thing about ZFS is that there are no recovery tools, so errors that are introduced into the pool are treated as trusted, and this CAN ruin your day.
Matthew Ahrens is not saying that it's fine to use ZFS without ECC. I submit that what he's really saying (as am I) is that ECC is a good idea for all filesystems, because the possibility of corruption without ECC exists for all filesystems.
You may not have experienced data loss due to the lack of ECC. Possibly true. Or possibly it just happened in some data that you never happened to notice. Neither you nor I can prove that, because the PC platform doesn't jealously guard its data.
But this debate reads very much like "I been drivin' around without seat belts for more than 25 years and I never got killed by an accident." Yes, fine. That's great. That doesn't make it the safest thing to do.
Even seat belts don't guarantee your safety. It's just mitigation.
With that said, I'm closing the thread. This pointless discussion has been had before. For best results with ZFS and FreeNAS storing your files, use ECC. We kind of assume you use ZFS with its sophisticated redundancy and error correction features because you really care about your data, so we say ECC is really important. If your data isn't so important to you, then don't worry about ECC. Also don't worry about RAIDZ2 or RAIDZ3. End of story.
