3 ms·

First, the author is wrong by your own terms. If you think a 13yo Python script is the state of the art for ZFS recovery, that still doesn't comport with what

First, the author is wrong by your own terms. If you think a 13yo Python script is the state of the art for ZFS recovery, that still doesn't comport with what the author said ("all data must be considered lost, there is no option for recovery"). The author is facially wrong. If you had said "I once had a corrupt pool I couldn't recover", that's a useful data point. But instead you tied your wagon to someone who obviously doesn't know much about what they are talking about. Second, you managed to ignore my two other original points -- 1) Is the state of other filesystems any better re: recovery in similar circumstances (show your work, when XFS is afflicted with the exact same type of corruption, how is it better)?, and 2) is it possible are you better positioned to deal with corruption with ZFS (because it's usually not silent)? I'm not saying ZFS is better for you. You are obviously not predisposed. What I am saying is -- your argument has to be better supported for it to make any sense.

Avamander 4y ago
It's very difficult for me or anyone to gather statistics about ZFS crash recovery. I do not think that script is the state-of-art of ZFS recovery, but it's the most common suggestion. The GitHub issue about a replacement is still open, there seems to be no functional alternative. Maybe such an absolute statement the author made is somewhat incorrect, but it's not entirely incorrect. Empirically so, according to the issue tracker. If people didn't request these things every year, I'd agree that there are no recovery issues. I do think that other filesystems tend to have better 1st and 2nd party tools for repair and recovery. It is also true that some file systems are less complex and that might help. But isn't that an argument for providing even stronger 1st party tooling and documentation? We want people to not lose any data, no? So to clarify the discussion a bit, what is it that you're claiming? Are you claiming ZFS has no recovery issues or that it's okay because some others are equally terrible to recover?

Avamander 4y ago

It's very difficult for me or anyone to gather statistics about ZFS crash recovery. I do not think that script is the state-of-art of ZFS recovery, but it's the most common suggestion. The GitHub issue about a replacement is still open, there seems to be no functional alternative. Maybe such an absolute statement the author made is somewhat incorrect, but it's not entirely incorrect. Empirically so, according to the issue tracker. If people didn't request these things every year, I'd agree that there are no recovery issues. I do think that other filesystems tend to have better 1st and 2nd party tools for repair and recovery. It is also true that some file systems are less complex and that might help. But isn't that an argument for providing even stronger 1st party tooling and documentation? We want people to not lose any data, no? So to clarify the discussion a bit, what is it that you're claiming? Are you claiming ZFS has no recovery issues or that it's okay because some others are equally terrible to recover?