LVM and dattobd are not equivalent and only have some overlap in usability and often come with severe limitations and implications in practice. ZFS is targeted

LVM and dattobd are not equivalent and only have some overlap in usability and often come with severe limitations and implications in practice. ZFS is targeted towards the enterprise and such is adapted for that use case. I agree that it isn't perfect for home users and I'm not advocating that ZFS be the acceptable solution. I'm just stating that Linux does not have a decent general purpose filesystem. There is nothing that says that a checksum mismatch results in data loss, that statement is absurd. ZFS has the stance that you should not work on corrupted data as that will result in further corruption when action are based upon it. I tend to agree with that approach, but ZFS will not remove the data it finds corrupted. You can also layer a more traditional filesystem upon ZFS to leverage redundancy, checksumming and snapshots, something that mdadm does not provide. There are very good reasons for why a layered approach isn't nearly as flexible, this was controversial at the time and debated alot a decade ago. Most RAID solutions don't even verify the data when read from normal operations. A checksummed approach is a significant improvement, in combination with redundant information you can automatically recover - something that is hard to do in a layered approach. Also, with with a checksum you can verify the correct result. With raid 5 or degraded raid 6 you can at best know that an error has occured but not fix it. Again something that a layered approach has issues with (even if the filesystem had checksumming the RAID controller/software wouldn't know or be able to act upon it).