3 ms·
> "just use zfs" is it's own can of worms. it's been fine for some of us for, what, nearly 10 years now?
by sigstoat 7y ago
> "just use zfs" is it's own can of worms.
it's been fine for some of us for, what, nearly 10 years now?
- vetinari 7y agoIf you consider normal to self-compile kernel modules on your production machines (or have compiler there, or use mutable system at all), well, then yes. Otherwise, it is a massive pita. I do have one machine with zfs, and I made the mistake of placing the root into a subvolume. Won't do that again.
- laumars 7y agoA few distros include ZoL drivers in their repos. There's also FreeBSD as well as the various platforms derived from the, now defunct, OpenSolaris. I've never had compile ZFS myself (though I have, on occasions, chosen to because I've wanted to try features before they hit the repos).
- nicoburns 7y agoI'd rather do that than use a buggy filesystem!
- vetinari 7y agoext4 and xfs are perfectly fine, you don't have to choose only between zfs or btrfs. In their case, being the boring ones, is an important feature. And they are supported by any linux distro out of the box.
- nicoburns 7y agoOh sure. I generally stick to ext4. But IF I needed the advanced features of btrfs/zfs, then I'd choose zfs.
- laumars 7y agoMore than 10 years in my case. I've run ZFS on production systems on Solaris, OpenSolaris, Nexenta, FreeBSD (vanilla, not FreeNAS) and, more recently, Ubuntu. Never had an issue. That said, I did once run into an issue running ZFS on ArchLinux which caused data loss. That was a highly experimental set up though and was before ZoL really took off (incidentally I've also run Btrfs on ArchLinux and that also caused me data loss). Hopefully I'm not jynxing things saying this, but ZFS has saved me from excessive downtime on a number of occasions. It has even recovered from corrupted superblock failures (when a RAID controller was faulty and randomly dropping devices during heavy load).