3 ms·

Opinions and dogma about licensing is one reason as well as a sense that ZFS isn't actually better than ETX4. I'm not saying I agree with that, only that it's

by mikece 7y ago

Opinions and dogma about licensing is one reason as well as a sense that ZFS isn't actually better than ETX4. I'm not saying I agree with that, only that it's why ZFS and Linux don't mix from what I can tell.

tw04 7y ago
It would appear canonical disagrees.
_emacsomancer_ 7y ago
ZFS and EXT4 have different use cases.
- rkeene2 7y ago
  ZFS and EXT4 on LVM have a lot of overlap. A decade or so ago I made a comparison between ZFS, BtrFS, and EXT4 on LVM [0] that may be of interest. [0] https://rkeene.org/projects/info/wiki/BtrFS https://rkeene.org/projects/info/wiki/BtrFS
  - _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
    The checksumming/error-correction of ZFS is big difference, and the main reason I moved some of my file systems to ZFS (even with versioned backups, on EXT4, I suffered data loss due to corruption/bitrot). On the other hand, for a simple set-up on a lower resource system, EXT4 has lots of advantages.
    - rkeene2 7y ago
      A good, controversial read is available at [0]. I don't agree with his conclusions entirely, but the data he presents is interesting. And also paired with [1] to give space overhead and MTBF figures for various RAID configurations (where RAID-Z ~= RAID5, RAID-Z2 ~= RAID6) [0] https://www.jodybruchon.com/2017/03/07/zfs-wont-save-you-fancy-filesystem-fanatics-need-to-get-a-clue-about-bit-rot-and-raid-5/ https://www.jodybruchon.com/2017/03/07/zfs-wont-save-you-fan... [1] https://rkeene.org/projects/info/wiki/221 https://rkeene.org/projects/info/wiki/221
      - _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
        From experience, as I said, I had bitrot on EXT4, with carefully versioned backups, but it didn't help, since the bitrot was just faithfully propagated through all the backups (I didn't have 5+ year backups - who knows when the bitrot occurred). And I haven't experienced file corruption in the 5+ years I've used ZFS. Of course, ZFS isn't a magic bullet that solves all ills, but I've been very happy with it. I still, of course, have multiple backups of important data, but now I'm more confident about the integrity of those backups.
bscphil 7y ago
I wasn't aware that anyone thinks ZFS is no better than ext4. Surely the interest in developing Btrfs and Bcachefs, with features obviously meant to compete with ZFS, would suggest that mostly people think it is? And you also have Canonical adopting ZFS outright, and Red Hat working on improving XFS as an alternative file system.

by mikece 7y ago

tw04 7y ago

It would appear canonical disagrees.

_emacsomancer_ 7y ago

ZFS and EXT4 have different use cases.

rkeene2 7y ago
ZFS and EXT4 on LVM have a lot of overlap. A decade or so ago I made a comparison between ZFS, BtrFS, and EXT4 on LVM [0] that may be of interest. [0] https://rkeene.org/projects/info/wiki/BtrFS https://rkeene.org/projects/info/wiki/BtrFS
- _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
  The checksumming/error-correction of ZFS is big difference, and the main reason I moved some of my file systems to ZFS (even with versioned backups, on EXT4, I suffered data loss due to corruption/bitrot). On the other hand, for a simple set-up on a lower resource system, EXT4 has lots of advantages.
  - rkeene2 7y ago
    A good, controversial read is available at [0]. I don't agree with his conclusions entirely, but the data he presents is interesting. And also paired with [1] to give space overhead and MTBF figures for various RAID configurations (where RAID-Z ~= RAID5, RAID-Z2 ~= RAID6) [0] https://www.jodybruchon.com/2017/03/07/zfs-wont-save-you-fancy-filesystem-fanatics-need-to-get-a-clue-about-bit-rot-and-raid-5/ https://www.jodybruchon.com/2017/03/07/zfs-wont-save-you-fan... [1] https://rkeene.org/projects/info/wiki/221 https://rkeene.org/projects/info/wiki/221
    - _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
      From experience, as I said, I had bitrot on EXT4, with carefully versioned backups, but it didn't help, since the bitrot was just faithfully propagated through all the backups (I didn't have 5+ year backups - who knows when the bitrot occurred). And I haven't experienced file corruption in the 5+ years I've used ZFS. Of course, ZFS isn't a magic bullet that solves all ills, but I've been very happy with it. I still, of course, have multiple backups of important data, but now I'm more confident about the integrity of those backups.

bscphil 7y ago

I wasn't aware that anyone thinks ZFS is no better than ext4. Surely the interest in developing Btrfs and Bcachefs, with features obviously meant to compete with ZFS, would suggest that mostly people think it is? And you also have Canonical adopting ZFS outright, and Red Hat working on improving XFS as an alternative file system.