3 ms·
I am using both. I've lost data on both, and near misses that required hair-raising metadata rebuild. BTRFS documentation still greatly trail behind ZFS, imo.
by guardiangod 3y ago
I am using both. I've lost data on both, and near misses that required hair-raising metadata rebuild.
BTRFS documentation still greatly trail behind ZFS, imo. It's RAID1 implementation is subpar in terms of monitoring.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago> I've lost data on both Can I ask about the circumstances of losing data on ZFS? I've been viewing it as 100% rock-solid, so I'd very much like to know about any failure modes I'm missing.
- nubinetwork 3y agoI know of two instances, but they were short lived. One revolved around hole_birth, and the other around reflinks and sendfile... but that second one could have been a python/portage issue instead. There was one instance of issues with encryption, but the feature was in testing at the time, and has long since been rectified. As for failure modes... the first issue above caused issues with send/receive, the second issue caused empty/sparse files to be written instead of data, and the encryption issue caused issues with send/receive and/or garbage data.
- guardiangod 3y agoiscsi target image file on ZFS RAIDZ zpool. I don't think it had much to do with iscsi though- the image file was affected because it's a TB-size file with lots of read/write. IIRC there were 2 other files that were also corrupted, but their sizes were in the range of teen GBs. I haven't seen any corruption from that installation since then. The corruptions were identified by scrub after an unexpected restart, but the files were already corrupted before that (the system that was using the iscsi target behaved strangely whenever it accessed the drive.) Server: Lenovo 3U server Xeon E5 v2 with ECC ram. I forgot what's the controller.