2 ms·
You should have an offsite backup. If you don’t, you are asking for data loss, regardless of what filesystem you use. I personally am glad that ZFS doesn’t hav
by hamandcheese 4y ago
You should have an offsite backup. If you don’t, you are asking for data loss, regardless of what filesystem you use.
I personally am glad that ZFS doesn’t have “easy to partially recover a corrupted FS” on their list of priorities. Designing for that might take resources away from making the system as a whole more robust, and at best it’s a half-measure that will never be a substitute for an offsite backup solution.
- Avamander 4y ago> If you don’t, you are asking for data loss, regardless of what filesystem you use. Backups have a delay. A filesystem that fails catastrophically is significantly worse than the one that doesn't.
- hamandcheese 4y agoSuppose your FS has a 50% chance of partially recoverable failure in a given time range. Is that always better than the catastrophic alternative, even if the odds of catastrophic failure are 0.01%?
- Avamander 4y agoThat risk assessment depends on your use-case. Those percentages also aren't very correct. Assuming that new files are being constantly created and they're not of vital long-term integrity, the chance of preventing silent bit rot (ZFS is supposed to protect against) is worth fuck all if it's much more likely that a bug takes your pool irrecoverably with hours of data.