4 ms·
On your laptop where you don't care about your files, there is no difference. On your workstation where you might need to have guaranteed I/O rates and multith
by postmodest 3y ago
On your laptop where you don't care about your files, there is no difference.
On your workstation where you might need to have guaranteed I/O rates and multithreaded I/O, XFS wins.
You clearly don't understand why snapshots are important, so here's the scenario: snapshots let you take ATOMIC backups. You can pause everything, create a filesystem-level snapshot, then resume everything, quickly. Then, at your leisure, you can use the snapshot you just made as a backup source for whatever destination you use. This means that the downtime for a full system backup can be as close to zero as possible, without worrying about in-flight changes to underlying data making for partial backups.
ZFS on systems without ECC may have issues where the checksums may be useless, but every filesystem is in danger without ECC, and I'm with Linus on "Intel is evil for locking ECC to Xeon as a market differentiator". But here we're back into the "Laptop vs Workstation/Server" scenario.
- gymbeaux 3y agoYeah I guess I should have clarified that I’m really just in a consumer scenario. I mean I don’t want data corruption but every article or blog post I have read about ZFS says you should use it with ECC RAM. I would love to use ECC RAM but the support with my particular AMD computers is iffy. I think it’ll work on my 5700X computer, but not my 5600G computer.
- postmodest 3y agoYou can use ZFS without ECC. The failure mode for ZFS without ECC is the same as the failure mode for Ext4 without ECC: your files are corrupt. The difference is that ZFS tells you. ...ok, also, ZFS tries to use a separate file cache on top of Linux's cache, and allocates half your RAM to it. I would not use ZFS on a laptop, or even a workstation. I do use it on file servers and Proxmox. On workstations I use lvm raid and xfs.