4 ms·

> don't even dare to use ZFS without dedicating 8-16 GB of ECC [!] memory to it Fixed that for you. Now, I've since build a storage server for my homelab usin

> don't even dare to use ZFS without dedicating 8-16 GB of ECC [!] memory to it Fixed that for you. Now, I've since build a storage server for my homelab using ZFS, but mdadm is far more accessible. It also feels easier - I know what's on the drives and how it is stored. In case of something strange happening with ZFS, I don't have any hope except backups. Also, ZFS lacks support in most distributions and somewhat obscure encryption capability. I don't mean to bash ZFS here - it's great. But the GP feels like it's saying "I don't see why would anyone not want to run a dedicated kubernetes cluster with HA for running a program on Linux".

KaiserPro 6y ago
> GP feels like it's saying "I don't see why would anyone not want to run a dedicated kubernetes cluster with HA for running a program on Linux". Thats not quite right Its more that the documentation, command line interface and general user setup is far more friendly than mdadm. I've been a sysadmin for many years, and looked after innumerable file servers, from clustered XFS (!) through many years of lustre, plain old XFS/ext2/3/5 on HWraid to netapps&isilons, and all sorts of flash in the pan appliances. Barring GPFS, the only file system that has documentation and tooling that is simple to understand and doesn't immediately bite you in the arse is ZFS. Kubernetes is neither simple, easy or quick to setup, or run.