| |
| ▲ | shiroiushi 3 days ago | parent [-] | | ext4 works fine on my Linux laptop and I agree, it's proven itself over many years to be supremely reliable, though it doesn't compare in features to the more complex filesystems. On my home media server, however, I'm using ZFS in a RAID array, with regular scrubs and snapshots. ZFS has many features like RAID, scrubs, COW, snapshots, etc. that you just don't get on ext4. However, unlike btrfs, ZFS seems to have a great reputation for reliability with all its features. | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I use ext4 on my home media server (24TB). I'm using LVM and MD, and it's been rock solid for a couple decades now, surviving all sorts of hardware failures. I haven't missed out on any zfs or btrfs features. Yes, I know about their benefits, and no, I don't care if a few bits flip here or there over time. | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Granted it was at least a decade ago but the team I was on had a terrible experience with ZFS and that bad taste still lingers. And I don’t need any of its features. | | |
| ▲ | yjftsjthsd-h 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Could I ask you to expand on your problems with ZFS? Code bugs, data loss, operational problems, ...? (Asking because I use it and would like to learn from your problems rather than having to experience the pain myself.) | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker a day ago | parent [-] | | It was a long time ago, and I wasn't directly involved. I did experience the fallout though, which was hours if not days of downtime to repair corruption. I'm sure it's better now, and these problems might not even be possible on a small home system, but I've always avoided ZFS since then. Plus it's just too complicated for my needs. As time has gone by I no longer enjoy complex technology for its own sake (I very much did when I was younger). Now I just want it to work and not demand any more of my time and brainpower than necessary. Features that I don't need are negatives. |
|
|
|
|
