3 ms·
ZFS is 100% better for RAID and resiliency. If you care about your data, ZFS is the answer. Even if you only have a single disk with no redundancy, at the very
by rhinoceraptor 7y ago
ZFS is 100% better for RAID and resiliency. If you care about your data, ZFS is the answer. Even if you only have a single disk with no redundancy, at the very least you'll know when your data is corrupted, so you can avoid polluting your backups with that corrupted data.
It's possibly better for performance, depending on use case. If you're dealing with easily compressible data, then you can enable compression, which can speed up your reads/writes since you're reading or writing less data. You shouldn't get a performance hit on non-compressible data, since it will adjust its compression when it gets non-compressible data.
- beatgammit 7y agoHow does it compare to BTRFS? It has many of the same features and is supported today in production (SUSE ships it today by default). I really like ZFS, and it's definitely more robust than most other filesystems, but there are multiple solutions "if you care about your data".
- emergie 7y agobtrfs still hasn't got working raid567 (raidz123 in zfs) https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56 https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56 in the begining of 2019 this page had a big fat warning: The parity RAID code has '''multiple serious data-loss bugs''' in it. It should '''not''' be used for anything other than testing purposes. Someone watered it down in march, but it still doesn't look much better.