4 ms·
ZFS, and most* other file systems are all about _one_ computer system. While ZFS data integrity features may be useful, they don't prevent the wide variety of
by ashayh 12y ago
ZFS, and most* other file systems are all about _one_ computer system.
While ZFS data integrity features may be useful, they don't prevent the wide variety of things that can go wrong on a _single_ computer. You still need site redundancy, multiple physical copies, recovery from user errors etc.
Large, modern enterprises are better off keeping data on application layer "filesystems" or databases, since they can more easily aggregate the storage of hundreds or thousands of physical nodes. ZFS doesn't help with anything special here.
For the average home user, ZoL modules are a hassle to maintain. You are better of setting up FeeNAS on a 2nd computer if you really want to use ZFS. Otherwise there is nothing much over what XFS, EXT4 or btrfs can offer.
The 'ssm' set of tools to manage LVM, and other built in file systems, is more easier for home users with regular needs.
GlusterFS and others are distributed file systems, but suffers from additional complexity at the OS and management layer.
- ryao 12y agoThe Lustre filesystem is able to use ZFSOnLinux for its OSDs. This gives it end to end checksum capabilities that I am told enabled the Lustre developers to catch buggy NIC drivers that were silently corrupting data. Alternatively, there is a commercial Linux distribution called SoftNAS that implements a proprietary feature called snap replicate on top of ZFS send/recv. This is allows it to maintain backups across availability zones and is achieved by its custom management software running the zfs send/recv commands as per user requests. In the interest of full disclosure, my 2014 income tax filing will include income from consulting fees that SoftNAS paid me to prioritize fixes for bugs that affected them. I received no money for such services in prior tax years.