Why PS4 need "Checkdisk" every dirty shutdown?

[Deleted member 11852]

have no idea, but this is a good reason to choose it.

ZFS was developed because of lack of data robustness (for big data) over older file systems like UFS. UFS is fine for desktop use. ZFS itself is closing on 10 years old, it's not new by any stretch.

 

[brunogm]

Just found this journal-lite upgrade to UFS. http://callfortesting.org/ufs/

Maybe this can solve your issues with ppfrequent power failures.

 

[Pixel]

Speaking of UPS I had one of the more expensive ones and during the time I used it I had 2 motherboards and 2 power supplies go bad on me.

 

[MrFox]

It very much depends on what your expecting ZFS to do. For example if you're concerned about data integrity (e.g. bit rot) and install it to your typical laptop, for average use (email, web, movies, music, gaming etc) then the filesystem isn't going to eat a gig of RAM constantly but may on a big write like a game install.

However if you're planning to use ZFS to manage lots of logical volumes in a high I/O load environment then you'll want memory. With the exception of some development and parity servers I don't think we have any individual servers in our cluster with less than 512Gb RAM and we allow a reserve a ZFS overhead of 16-32Gb per server although it's rarely that high - we're mostly compute-bound rather than disk I/O bound.

ZFS's appeal is high-performance end-to-end data integrity, from the moment data enter's the I/O command buffers to it being written to disk, so there is a lot of buffering throughout the different layers and it's these buffers that eat RAM. Data will stick in buffers until every write has been verified.

I hope that helps!

Wow, nice. It's more RAM than the capacity of the PS4 HDD.

Yeah, the end-to-end CRC that comes with ZFS and Btrfs is the biggest revolution, I wish I could use it. Most interesting new features from modern file systems come with a CPU and memory overhead, that's why I'm still stuck with XFS despite it's age. Client wanted performance-above-all, and have little money, so nothing else fits the bill (they needed to saturate a 20Gb/s link from a thousand samba files open, uncachable access pattern, on a normal dual CPU board). And that was 4 years ago.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Wow, nice. It's more RAM than the capacity of the PS4 HDD.

It's never enough With the exception of a few clusters, no-single OS build has access to all of the RAM, typically a 512Gb server would be running ~32virtual OS builds with ~32Gb RAM. We use custom virtualisation which can reconfigure the the builds/RAM distribution in near realtime. If you're solving problems that need more RAM than less virtualized environments with more RAM is better.

Yeah, the end-to-end CRC that comes with ZFS and Btrfs is the biggest revolution, I wish I could use it. Most interesting new features from modern file systems come with a CPU and memory overhead, that's why I'm still stuck with XFS despite it's age. Client wanted performance-above-all, and have little money, so nothing else fits the bill (they needed to saturate a 20Gb/s link from a thousand samba files open, uncachable access pattern, on a normal dual CPU board). And that was 4 years ago.

Yup. You can modify any filesystem to verify all writes but you'll pay in I/O performance. One of the goals of ZFS was to hide the impact to performance and that hits RAM instead. ZFS is notable because it's not just a filesystem, it's really designed to replace the entire storage stack from low-level logical volume manager to high-level application-visisble APIs.

There are people who use ZFS at home, and thats fine if it makes them feel better, but most people probably don't need it. Most filesystems have adequate methods to detect I/O and disk errors. But when you're scaling up to k-terabtes/petabytes of storage the risk of errors is now so large that not using something like ZFS is frankly crazy

 

[Shifty Geezer]

For the sake of clarity, can we please use the standards of GB for bytes and Gb for bits?

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Can't answer your question, but on a related note, does the PS4 or Xbox 1 support smart shutdown from a compatible UPS? I have brownout issues at home so I rely on that when I'm away and my PC is idling.

Didn't see anybody answer this, does anybody know? That is one of my favorite features on my Synology NAS (running RAID0 so it's kinda important), and it's pretty awesome when it works and I come home and read the logs telling me that the NAS lost power and was shut down by the UPS and then restarted again once the UPS let it know that main power was restored.

For devices (especially the Xb0x) that were envisioned as "always on, always connected", I'd think this would have been a built-in feature. Then again, I've been surprised before.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

For the sake of clarity, can we please use the standards of GB for bytes and Gb for bits?

Yeah my bad although I'd dearly hope that members on a technical forum would assume (or know) the conventional metric for storage or RAM is going to be bytes and the metric for any serialised or packeted connection is going to bit bits

Didn't see anybody answer this, does anybody know? That is one of my favorite features on my Synology NAS (running RAID0 so it's kinda important), and it's pretty awesome when it works and I come home and read the logs telling me that the NAS lost power and was shut down by the UPS and then restarted again once the UPS let it know that main power was restored.

This is theoreticaly basic SNMP stuff but actual implementation seems to be fraught compatibility issues betweens UPS units and various hardware.

I know the uses of a UPS vary, some people use them to carry on as normal for hours, only shutting down when the UPS itself is out of juice and smaller UPSs are just designed to safely shut up a piece of hardware until power is restored.

What is it you want the UPS and console to do and in what circumstances? The PlayStation 3 and 4 certainly have WOL (Wake on Lan) functionality which is how they are woken from a remote device (PSP, Vita remote play etc) and that's really all you need. The rest is just software profiles.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yeah my bad although I'd dearly hope that members on a technical forum would assume (or know) the conventional metric for storage or RAM is going to be bytes and the metric for any serialised or packeted connection is going to bit bits

I'd expect that, but when dealing with abnormal amounts like 512 GB of RAM, it does give one pause!