No, it won't.
https://jrs-s.net/2015/02/03/will-zfs-and-non-ecc-ram-kill-y...
> Let’s assume that we have RAM that not only isn’t working 100% properly, but is actively goddamn evil and trying its naive but enthusiastic best to specifically kill your data during a scrub. First, you read a block. This block is good. It is perfectly good data written to a perfectly good disk with a perfectly matching checksum. But that block is read into evil RAM, and the evil RAM flips some bits. Perhaps those bits are in the data itself, or perhaps those bits are in the checksum. Either way, your perfectly good block now does not appear to match its checksum, and since we’re scrubbing, ZFS will attempt to actually repair the “bad” block on disk. Uh-oh! What now?
> Next, you read [a copy of the same block from another disk]. Now, if your evil RAM leaves this block alone, ZFS will see that the second copy matches its checksum, and so it will overwrite the first block with the same data it had originally – no data was lost here, just a few wasted disk cycles. OK. But what if your evil RAM flips a bit in the second copy? Since it doesn’t match the checksum either, ZFS doesn’t overwrite anything. It logs an unrecoverable data error for that block, and leaves both copies untouched on disk.
If there is a filesystem that is dumb enough to cause corruption during the checksumming process, please let me know which one, so I can be sure to never ever ever go anywhere near it. :)
Error checking will only ever help you, not hurt you. It doesn’t matter how bad you memory or disk or raid controller is. Error checking won't necessarily save you from those things, but it can in some cases, and it’ll never make things worse.
"There's nothing special about ZFS that requires/encourages the use of ECC RAM more so than any other filesystem. If you use UFS, EXT, NTFS, btrfs, etc without ECC RAM, you are just as much at risk as if you used ZFS without ECC RAM. I would simply say: if you love your data, use ECC RAM. Additionally, use a filesystem that checksums your data, such as ZFS."
Wow. If you weren't talking about ZFS in a comment under an article concerning ZFS, an article concerning the same issue you are parroting, an issue that supposedly effects ZFS, what filesystem were you talking about?
Let me guess, a hypothetical filesystem.
Sure, whatever.
> bad memory corrupting data being actively changed remains a problem for any filesystem. If the filesystem is actively changing data it can not rely on anything it is writing to disk being correct if the in memory buffers and other data structures are themselves corrupted.
And, yet, that's not the argument you just made. This is what makes me thinks this is a bad faith pivot to something, anything respectable. It's not like I'm going to forget that you said right above (it's still there!) that a scrub could destroy all your data. This claim has been repeatedly debunked. You may have been taken in. Fine. That happens. Just, now that you know, don't keep spreading this FUD.