3 ms·

I like ZFS because it’s available on so many platforms, even macOS. It allows me to use the same snapshot-based backup process for all my machines. Still, I’d

I like ZFS because it’s available on so many platforms, even macOS. It allows me to use the same snapshot-based backup process for all my machines. Still, I’d love to see more people adopt btrfs because I think diversity in filesystems is a good thing.

sneak 6y ago
ZFS support on macOS has been barely beta-quality for at least five years. I wish it were actually cross-platform, but it really only works well on Linux and FreeBSD.
- Hackbraten 6y ago
  Can you elaborate about the beta quality? I’ve been using it on macOS as my daily driver for about two years now. Maybe it has improved?
  - sneak 6y ago
    I've tried 4 or 5 times over the last 3 or 5 years to use it on macOS and I've been rewarded with hangs, corruption, kernel panics. For something as critical as a filesystem, it's just not ready.
jcelerier 6y ago
> I like ZFS because it’s available on so many platforms, even macOS. I like btrfs because it is just a `cinst winbtrfs` away on win32
- baq 6y ago
  how is it possible that something created by basically one dude in his spare time on windows is working well when there are dozens of developers trying to implement it correctly in the linux kernel? or perhaps my impression after this recommendation is wrong and this actually isn't working well? much confuse
  - jcelerier 6y ago
    > how is it possible that something created by basically one dude in his spare time on windows is working well when there are dozens of developers trying to implement it correctly in the linux kernel? I don't think there is any case where this WinBTRFS would work better than the Linux implementation, but the Linux implementation is solid enough - if BTRFS is good enough for Synology NASes (https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/Btrfs https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/Btrfs), it's good enough for me. I wonder what led you to this line of thinking though. It reminds me of people being amazed at $NEWER_TECH just because it had less time to accumulate bug reports.

sneak 6y ago

ZFS support on macOS has been barely beta-quality for at least five years. I wish it were actually cross-platform, but it really only works well on Linux and FreeBSD.

Hackbraten 6y ago
Can you elaborate about the beta quality? I’ve been using it on macOS as my daily driver for about two years now. Maybe it has improved?
- sneak 6y ago
  I've tried 4 or 5 times over the last 3 or 5 years to use it on macOS and I've been rewarded with hangs, corruption, kernel panics. For something as critical as a filesystem, it's just not ready.

jcelerier 6y ago

> I like ZFS because it’s available on so many platforms, even macOS. I like btrfs because it is just a `cinst winbtrfs` away on win32

baq 6y ago
how is it possible that something created by basically one dude in his spare time on windows is working well when there are dozens of developers trying to implement it correctly in the linux kernel? or perhaps my impression after this recommendation is wrong and this actually isn't working well? much confuse
- jcelerier 6y ago
  > how is it possible that something created by basically one dude in his spare time on windows is working well when there are dozens of developers trying to implement it correctly in the linux kernel? I don't think there is any case where this WinBTRFS would work better than the Linux implementation, but the Linux implementation is solid enough - if BTRFS is good enough for Synology NASes (https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/Btrfs https://www.synology.com/en-global/dsm/Btrfs), it's good enough for me. I wonder what led you to this line of thinking though. It reminds me of people being amazed at $NEWER_TECH just because it had less time to accumulate bug reports.