On 28.11.20 05:51, Nick Holland wrote: > I've heard that from a lot of people. > And yet, those same people, when pressed, will tell you that a ZFS-equipped > system will crash much more often than simpler file systems. That's one > heck of a real penalty to pay for a theoretical advantage. > > I've setup some cool stuff using ZFS (dynamically sized partitions, > snapshots, zfs sends of snapshots to other machines, etc), but man, I > spent a comical amount of time babysitting and fixing file system > problems. The 1980s are over, file systems should Just Work now. > If you are babysitting them constantly, something ain't right. If > someone wants to add a ZFS-like "scrubbing" feature to ffs, I'd be all > for it. But not for the penalties that come with ZFS.
no idea what you did but I have never had problems on ZFS (in ~ 10 years, 250 servers, few PB of storage) with Solaris and FreeBSD, Linux yes. Other than that I can just highly recommend reconsidering ZFS, my experience was: bit rot on modern high density disks _is_ a problem. sorry for offtopic.