4 ms·

I'm currently running a backup box nearly identical to the OP, and haven't had a problem yet (built it over a year ago). ZFS runs like a dream on Ubuntu, even

by rewtraw 14y ago

I'm currently running a backup box nearly identical to the OP, and haven't had a problem yet (built it over a year ago). ZFS runs like a dream on Ubuntu, even with a slew of oddly sized disks (1TB + 2x2TB + 3TB) at 90% capacity. I've had my SATA card come loose, and ZFS just locks down the FS to r/o so no damage is done. And unlike many other file systems, ZFS's checking utility actually gives you human readable results if there is an error (eg. "/foo/bar is corrupt", not just cryptic messages), and outputs exactly what you should do to repair data. I recommend at least trying ZFS out in a VM, I guarantee you'll be impressed by the versatility.

StavrosK 14y ago
I'll definitely give it a shot, thanks. Does anyone know what btrfs lacks compared to zfs, other than stability?
- jpadkins 14y ago
  For a file system that is a big 'other than'.
  - StavrosK 14y ago
    Sure, but I already know ZFS is stable and btrfs is less so.
dedward 14y ago
Definitely worth checking out on some VMs..... But know that to really use it, you want decent CPU speed, as much ECC ram as you can put in there, an SSD for cache (just one - doesn't have to match the raid size I don't think - it'l help a lot) and you still need to take into account all the normal raid cautious everyone ignores like rebuild times for 2TB sata2 drives -vs- failure rates, etc.... and if you want to use dedup without verify, that's your gamble.(smarter people than me say it's safe, but it just smells wrong)