2 ms·
I mostly agree, and that's largely why I use ZFS a lot. But: > A FS should be stable from the beginning, If this is your standard, I don't think there's a fil
by _jal 7y ago
I mostly agree, and that's largely why I use ZFS a lot. But:
> A FS should be stable from the beginning,
If this is your standard, I don't think there's a file system out there that meets it. ZFS has had data-loss bugs. I doubt there is any non-toy file system that hasn't.
I've thought about what standard should apply to this - it is a prove-a-negative problem, that filesystem-X in combination with whatever recent kernel will not lose data. I don't have a good answer, but the one I came up with is "multiple years without a dataloss bug, of quick turnaround to other bug fixes, and a warm-fuzzy feeling about the developers."
- nickik 7y agoIt was designed to primary not lose data from the very beginning. That was at the very core of every design choice. Maybe there were a few such bugs but I have not read of any, while in comparison Btrfs I have read a whole of them. Compare how bcachefs/zfs approaches these challenges and then go back to the early years of Btrfs. There is really no comparison.
- _jal 7y agoI don't disagree that maintainer-goals and practices make me trust ZFS more. They do. But there have been bugs. Last major one I remember in the core code is this one: https://blog.lastinfirstout.net/2010/04/bit-by-bug-data-loss-running-oracle-on.html https://blog.lastinfirstout.net/2010/04/bit-by-bug-data-loss... But there was a Linux-specific data loss bug with ZFS in 2018: https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/7401 https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/7401 Of course you should use what you like. And I agree that ZFS is safer. But again, I don't know of any file system that can say it has "been stable from the beginning", if stable means no data loss.