4 ms·
Yes (although ZFS is pretty stable, it is always good to mention to not put all your eggs in a single basket). My fallbacks are: - an external drive that I co
by Helmut10001 3y ago
Yes (although ZFS is pretty stable, it is always good to mention to not put all your eggs in a single basket).
My fallbacks are:
- an external drive that I connect once a year and just rsync-dump everything
- for important files, a separate box where I have borg/borgmatic [1] in deduplication mode installed; this is updated once in a while
Just curious: Do you have any reason to believe that such a data corruption bug is likely in ZFS? It seems like saying that ext4 could have a bug and you should also store stuff on NTFS, just in case (which I think does not make sense..).
[1]: https://github.com/borgmatic-collective/borgmatic https://github.com/borgmatic-collective/borgmatic
- Helmut10001 3y agoGood further comment on the subject [1]. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/85aa7s/comment/dvw55u3/ https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/85aa7s/comment/dvw55u3...
- antongribok 3y agoIt's funny that you link to a comment from 6 years ago. Just a month after that there was a pretty big bug in ZFS that corrupted data. https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/7401 https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/7401 Corresponding HN discussion at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16797644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16797644
- Helmut10001 3y agoYes, I read that. It is underpinning the 3-2-1 rule, 3 backups, on 2 different mediums (where zfs can be one of the two), one off-site. I think it makes sense and thank you for the sensible reminder.