5 ms·
snapshots every 15 minutes are a big selling point of ZFS for me; losing a file to a tired $ grep bar foo.txt | tr A-Z a-z > foo.txt is much more common t
by remexre 2y ago
snapshots every 15 minutes are a big selling point of ZFS for me; losing a file to a tired
$ grep bar foo.txt | tr A-Z a-z > foo.txt
is much more common than losing a disk
- sgbeal 2y ago> losing a file to a tired ... If the file isn't in source control, a backup, or auto-synced cloud storage, it can't be _that_ important. If it was in either, it could be recovered easily without replacing one's filesystem with one which needs hand-holding to keep it running. Shrug.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- remexre 2y agoZFS is the mechanism by which I implement local (via snapshots) and remote (via zfs send) backups on my user-facing machines. - It can do 4x 15-minute snapshots, 24x hourly snapshots, 7x daily snapshots, 4x weekly snapshots, and 12x monthly snapshots, without making 51 copies of my files. - Taking a snapshot has imperceptible performance impact. - Snapshots are taken atomically. - Snapshots can be booted from, if it's a system that's screwed up and not just one file. - Snapshots can be accessed without disturbing the FS. In my experience it hasn't required more hand-holding than ext4 past the initial install, but the OSes that most of my devices use either officially support ZFS or don't use package managers that will blindly upgrade a kernel past what out-of-tree modules I'm using will support, which I think fixes the most common issue people have with ZFS.