3 ms·

Thanks for the comment. I think it's a bigger issue: people advocating ZFS only promote the good features and aren't open about the downsides (or even try to do

Thanks for the comment. I think it's a bigger issue: people advocating ZFS only promote the good features and aren't open about the downsides (or even try to downplay them with clear bullshit). It all depends on the circumstances and requirements: (small) business application or some home-build NAS? In your case, how much does it matter that some node experiences bitrot, and how big are those risks?

drewg123 6y ago
Our use case is far different than a home NAS (hundreds of TB of disk), I replied to that simply because it was also talking about potential downsides to ZFS. For our use, bit rot is pretty low risk. We have tooling to catch corrupted files (and it happens surprisingly rarely). We don't care about any of the raid like features (if a drive dies, we tell clients to get their video elsewhere). For our use case, ZFS would be attractive mainly because of the ability to keep metadata in the L2 ARC. One of our bigger sources of P99 latency is uncached metadata reads from mechanical drives. Our FS guys are currently solving that problem in other ways.
- louwrentius 6y ago
  Thank you for this explanation, very interesting. If that's something you can share, would be a nice blogpost.