Customers blowing off their feet with ZFS because they felt the need to tweak tunables they didn’t need to use, or didn’t properly understand, is not the fault of ZFS though.

You can do the same with just about any file system. In the Windows world you can blow your feet off with NTFS configuration too.

Of course there have been bugs, but every filesystem has had data-impacting bugs. Redundancy and backups are a critical caveat for all file systems for a reason. I once heard it said that “you can always afford to lose the data you don’t have backed up”. I do not think that broadly applies (such as with individuals), but it certainly applies in most business contexts.

▲

natebc 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah, my reaction to it usually that's so quickly recommended so frequently for general use.

Obviously there's footguns in everything. Filesystem ones are just especially impactful.

	▲	TheNewsIsHere a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yep. I use ZFS at home, but on business oriented NAS hardware with drives to match (generally). And I don’t go asking it to do odd things or configure it bizarrely. I don’t pass through drives named with Linux names (I prefer WWN to PCI address naming, at least at home). Etc. But a lot of people out there will slap a bunch of USB 2.0 hard drives on top of an old gaming computer. I’m all for experimenting, and I sympathize that it’s expensive to run ZFS on “ZFS class” platforms and hardware. I don’t begrudge others that. It would be really nice if there was something like ZFS that was a tad more flexibility and right in the kernel with consistent and concise user space tooling. Not everyone is comfortable with DKMS.