Monthly Archives: March 2017

Parsing the GOP’s Health Insurance Statistics

Politics

There has been a lot of noise lately about the GOP health care plan (AHCA) and the differences to the current plan (ACA or Obamacare). A lot of statistics are being misinterpreted.

The New York Times has an excellent analysis of some of this. But to pick it apart, I want to highlight a few things:

Many Republicans are touting the CBO’s estimate that, some years out, premiums will be 10% lower under their plan than under the ACA. However, this carries with it a lot of misleading information.

First of all, many are spinning this as if costs would go down. That’s not the case. The premiums would still rise — they would just have risen less by the end of the period than under ACA. That also ignores the immediate spike and throwing millions out of the insurance marketplace altogether.

Now then, where does this 10% number come from? First of all, you have to understand the older people are substantially more expensive to the health system, and therefore more expensive to insure. ACA limited the price differential from the youngest to the oldest people, which meant that in effect some young people were subsidizing older ones on the individual market. The GOP plan removes that limit. Combined with other changes in subsidies and tax credits, this dramatically increases the cost to older people. For instance, the New York Times article cites a CBO estimate that “the price an average 64-year-old earning $26,500 would need to pay after using a subsidy would increase from $1,700 under Obamacare to $14,600 under the Republican plan.”

They further conclude that these exceptionally high rates would be so unaffordable to older people that the older people will simply stop buying insurance on the individual market. This means that the overall risk pool of people in that market is healthier, and therefore the average price is lower.

So, to sum up: the reason that insurance premiums under the GOP plan will rise at a slightly slower rate long-term is that the higher-risk people will be unable to afford insurance in the first place, leaving only the cheaper people to buy in.

Silent Data Corruption Is Real

Debian

Here’s something you never want to see:

ZFS has detected a checksum error:

   eid: 138
 class: checksum
  host: alexandria
  time: 2017-01-29 18:08:10-0600
 vtype: disk

This means there was a data error on the drive. But it’s worse than a typical data error — this is an error that was not detected by the hardware. Unlike most filesystems, ZFS and btrfs write a checksum with every block of data (both data and metadata) written to the drive, and the checksum is verified at read time. Most filesystems don’t do this, because theoretically the hardware should detect all errors. But in practice, it doesn’t always, which can lead to silent data corruption. That’s why I use ZFS wherever I possibly can.

As I looked into this issue, I saw that ZFS repaired about 400KB of data. I thought, “well, that was unlucky” and just ignored it.

Then a week later, it happened again. Pretty soon, I noticed it happened every Sunday, and always to the same drive in my pool. It so happens that the highest I/O load on the machine happens on Sundays, because I have a cron job that runs zpool scrub on Sundays. This operation forces ZFS to read and verify the checksums on every block of data on the drive, and is a nice way to guard against unreadable sectors in rarely-used data.

I finally swapped out the drive, but to my frustration, the new drive now exhibited the same issue. The SATA protocol does include a CRC32 checksum, so it seemed (to me, at least) that the problem was unlikely to be a cable or chassis issue. I suspected motherboard.

It so happened I had a 9211-8i SAS card. I had purchased it off eBay awhile back when I built the server, but could never get it to see the drives. I wound up not filling it up with as many drives as planned, so the on-board SATA did the trick. Until now.

As I poked at the 9211-8i, noticing that even its configuration utility didn’t see any devices, I finally started wondering if the SAS/SATA breakout cables were a problem. And sure enough – I realized I had a “reverse” cable and needed a “forward” one. $14 later, I had the correct cable and things are working properly now.

One other note: RAM errors can sometimes cause issues like this, but this system uses ECC DRAM and the errors would be unlikely to always manifest themselves on a particular drive.

So over the course of this, had I not been using ZFS, I would have had several megabytes of reads with undetected errors. Thanks to using ZFS, I know my data integrity is still good.