7 ms·

I think you meant ZFS, not zsh. I use both XFS and ZFS. XFS in any situation where it is a single drive (ie, my laptop), ZFS in any situation where I'm doing a

I think you meant ZFS, not zsh. I use both XFS and ZFS. XFS in any situation where it is a single drive (ie, my laptop), ZFS in any situation where I'm doing actual fault tolerant high performance storage stuff. I don't see where ext family really matters in modern storage. If I decide to not use XFS anymore, there are flash-dedicated filesystems that will beat ext in performance and reliability on SSDs that better fit the future.

miohtama 3y ago
Fixed, thank you!
XorNot 3y ago
ZFS is actually ideal for single drives because even if you can't do recovery, knowing a file has corrupted is extremely valuable.
- anecdotal1 3y ago
  set copies=2 or 3 and it can recover corrupted data on that filesystem at the expense of storage
  - 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
    SSDs are very likely to put all those copies into a single physical block underneath. Since ZFS makes backups easy, better stick to copies=1 and do backups often.
    - p01ge 3y ago
      Wrong. ZFS' copies are made across several different devices.
      - vladvasiliu 3y ago
        What do you mean? The discussion in this particular sub-thread is about running ZFS on a single drive (think laptop). Does it have some kind of mechanism to send the write for a copy "later enough" that it will likely end on a different physical block?
        poige 3y ago
        I meant "primarily this copies mechanism is targeted towards multiple devices setup". With a single SSD it's indeed prone to the caveat which was pointed out; even if not due to being mapped to same storage "area" but also because SSDs often fail completely. Also makes sense to note that __when__ narrowed to a single-disk setup ZFS' can be interchanged with Btrfs; almost same set of features but lesser overhead and complexity.
    - poige 3y ago
      Wrong. ZFS' copies are made across several different devices. (2nd copy)
      - krylon 3y ago
        If you are using ZFS on a single drive, they reside on the same drive by necessity. Which was the case the parent posters were talking about.
    - anecdotal1 3y ago
      I shouldn't think that's true. Why wouldn't the firmware be splitting writes across different physical chips for performance and wear leveling reasons?
5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
> there are flash-dedicated filesystems that will beat ext in performance and reliability If you mean f2fs, it really won't. Be careful with it. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/atc19-jaffer.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/atc19-jaffer.pdf The paper is old at this point, but I found a fresh PhD thesis from the same author from 2023, and it seems to re-confirm these findings.
- DiabloD3 3y ago
  That sucks. I know a lot of Android users that prefer f2fs over ext* due to reliability and performance concerns, and seem to at least have some concrete reason to believe so.
vermaden 3y ago
Single drive ZFS is also a great use case for ZFS because: - full data integrity check (not only metadata like with XFS) - transparent compression (LZ/ZSTD/...) - ZFS Boot Environments - makes your system bulletproof against changes - easy move ZFS Boot Environments between systems with zfs send|zfs recv commands None of that is possible with XFS.

miohtama 3y ago

Fixed, thank you!

XorNot 3y ago

ZFS is actually ideal for single drives because even if you can't do recovery, knowing a file has corrupted is extremely valuable.

anecdotal1 3y ago
set copies=2 or 3 and it can recover corrupted data on that filesystem at the expense of storage
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
  SSDs are very likely to put all those copies into a single physical block underneath. Since ZFS makes backups easy, better stick to copies=1 and do backups often.
  - p01ge 3y ago
    Wrong. ZFS' copies are made across several different devices.
    - vladvasiliu 3y ago
      What do you mean? The discussion in this particular sub-thread is about running ZFS on a single drive (think laptop). Does it have some kind of mechanism to send the write for a copy "later enough" that it will likely end on a different physical block?
      - poige 3y ago
        I meant "primarily this copies mechanism is targeted towards multiple devices setup". With a single SSD it's indeed prone to the caveat which was pointed out; even if not due to being mapped to same storage "area" but also because SSDs often fail completely. Also makes sense to note that __when__ narrowed to a single-disk setup ZFS' can be interchanged with Btrfs; almost same set of features but lesser overhead and complexity.
  - poige 3y ago
    Wrong. ZFS' copies are made across several different devices. (2nd copy)
    - krylon 3y ago
      If you are using ZFS on a single drive, they reside on the same drive by necessity. Which was the case the parent posters were talking about.
  - anecdotal1 3y ago
    I shouldn't think that's true. Why wouldn't the firmware be splitting writes across different physical chips for performance and wear leveling reasons?

5e92cb50239222b 3y ago

> there are flash-dedicated filesystems that will beat ext in performance and reliability If you mean f2fs, it really won't. Be careful with it. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/atc19-jaffer.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/atc19-jaffer.pdf The paper is old at this point, but I found a fresh PhD thesis from the same author from 2023, and it seems to re-confirm these findings.

DiabloD3 3y ago
That sucks. I know a lot of Android users that prefer f2fs over ext* due to reliability and performance concerns, and seem to at least have some concrete reason to believe so.

vermaden 3y ago

Single drive ZFS is also a great use case for ZFS because: - full data integrity check (not only metadata like with XFS) - transparent compression (LZ/ZSTD/...) - ZFS Boot Environments - makes your system bulletproof against changes - easy move ZFS Boot Environments between systems with zfs send|zfs recv commands None of that is possible with XFS.