4 ms·
> 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 signific
by 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.