> That's not a reasonable standard for reviewers. It is when the attitude is "What's the big deal?" ZFS is two decades on, and, is by many metrics, still the

> That's not a reasonable standard for reviewers. It is when the attitude is "What's the big deal?" ZFS is two decades on, and, is by many metrics, still the state of the art in the traditional filesystem space. What ZFS does is extremely hard, and the reason we know is because every open source competitor can't touch it, so I'm saying -- have a little respect. You don't like it? You prioritize reflinks (ZFS just merged block cloning BTW, so hello reflinks: https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/13392 https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/13392) or offline dedup over RAIDZ? Fine. But make sure your favorite filesystem (or your new filesystem) can do what ZFS does, day in and day out, before you throw that shade. If it does half the things, or breaks sometimes, it's still a toy compared to ZFS.