3 ms·

Can it still be called "rock solid" with a data corruption bug in its younger history? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38770168 https://news.ycombinator.co

• helf 2y ago
  Yes.
• hulitu 2y ago
  > Can it still be called "rock solid" with a data corruption bug in its younger history? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38770168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38770168 Ok.It is sand solid. There were a lot of voices on HN trying to downplay the issue, but, a filesystem cannot be named stable, if it corrupts data, in 2020.
• snvzz 2y ago
  Absolutely. We can trust it because it has already done through all this. It is battle-proven. Unlike some new filesystem created just yesterday.
• koverstreet 2y ago
  Every filesystem has had data corruption bugs. Unfortunately, that's just how it is with the complexity of modern filesystems and the tools we have. (We're still coding in bloody _C_). What you really don't want is to be losing entire filesytems. A single file here and there getting corrupted is one thing, and it's usually highly workload dependent so it'll probably only hit one application, but losing an entire filesystem is much more impactful. ext 2/3/4 has the best track record here (and note, it's also had data corruption bugs), with the relatively simple on disk format and e2fsck being quite robust. XFS is probably next up, I've seen reports of XFS filesystems being lost but only one or two - a tiny, tiny fraction of the btrfs reports. Can't speak as much to ZFS.