4 ms·

YMMV, but I've used ZFS on all my workstations and servers for over 2 years now. Many of them are ZFS on top of LUKS/cryptsetup for FDE. None of the machines us

YMMV, but I've used ZFS on all my workstations and servers for over 2 years now. Many of them are ZFS on top of LUKS/cryptsetup for FDE. None of the machines use ECC RAM, and due lots of things (ie. me doing dumb shit, bad cutting edge kernel builds, fubar GFX drivers causing X to boot to black screen etc) I frequently either hard reset them, or Alt + Prtscreen + REISUB them, I've never had a single issue with ZFS. By comparison, I've had issues with virtually every other filesystem that exists for Linux: ext(2,3,tho not 4), reiserfs, and especially the much hated xfs, death to xfs etc :) I run his hardware, picked because... well cheap: GIGABYTE GA-990FXA-UD5 ( AMD 990FX/SB950 - Socket AM3+ - FSB5200 ) 4 x DDR3 4GB DDR1866 (PC3-15000) - KINGSTON HyperX [KHX1866C9D3/4G] or 4 x 16gb of the same type as above AMD FX 8-Core FX-8320 [Socket AM3+ - 1000Kb - 3.5 GHz - 32nm ] The ZFS all include root + swap running on ZFS with FDE, this sort of thing for workstations: NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool 13.2G 25.9G 30K none rpool/root 11.1G 25.9G 5.10G / rpool/root/home-users 6.02G 25.9G 6.02G /home rpool/swap 2.06G 27.4G 646M - servers: NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool0/ROOT/ROOT 6G 1.42T 198K / rpool0/ROOT/swap 32G 1.42T 700M - rpool0/ROOT/BACKUP 676G 1.42T 676G /nfs/backup rpool0/ROOT/HOME 14.1G 1.42T 14.1G /home rpool0/ROOT/MUSIC 358G 1.42T 358G /nfs/music rpool0/ROOT/portage 14.9G 1.42T 14.9G /nfs/portage rpool0/ROOT/vmware 45.9G 1.42T 45.9G /vmware The server hosts several virtual machines, many of which have their own root over NFS, the point being that the ZFS gets plenty of use.

dTal 12y ago
You ever try JFS? I standardised on it for all my machines a few years ago and it's served me very well - fast fsck and no corruption so far. Bit long in the tooth now but that's no bad thing for a filesystem.
- Nanzikambe 12y ago
  I have not, but the only reason for not trying it is because of my increasing use of RAID in hardware and VMs, I wanted something that was completely agnostic to disks, which is something ZFS delivers but JFS didn't seem to when I checked. Basically I wanted something that doesn't intertwine the concept of file-system with the concept of disks or partitions, but as space. So changes to the underlying pool of disks (or partitions, or loopback files, etc) don't mean so much painful rebuilding for me, something I spent many hundreds of hours on in the past, often at stupid o'clock in the morning. Did I mention how much I hate XFS? That's why :)

dTal 12y ago

You ever try JFS? I standardised on it for all my machines a few years ago and it's served me very well - fast fsck and no corruption so far. Bit long in the tooth now but that's no bad thing for a filesystem.

Nanzikambe 12y ago
I have not, but the only reason for not trying it is because of my increasing use of RAID in hardware and VMs, I wanted something that was completely agnostic to disks, which is something ZFS delivers but JFS didn't seem to when I checked. Basically I wanted something that doesn't intertwine the concept of file-system with the concept of disks or partitions, but as space. So changes to the underlying pool of disks (or partitions, or loopback files, etc) don't mean so much painful rebuilding for me, something I spent many hundreds of hours on in the past, often at stupid o'clock in the morning. Did I mention how much I hate XFS? That's why :)