[43224gg252]

For as much propaganda as I see about ZFS, I've never once encountered it in the wild.

Most of the companies here I've never even heard of and the ones I have heard of aren't companies I would take into account when choosing a file system.

http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Companies

In all my years I've never encountered or needed this file system, and every time it's mentioned it sounds like it's more trouble to run it than its worth.

[a012]

Are you talking about ZFS on linux or just ZFS itself? It's pretty wild to say "it's more trouble to run it than its worth" just about ZFS when you run it on FreeBSD or Solaris.

[walrus]

Maybe you just happened to work in industries that don't need it? I've had 5 software development jobs, two of which used ZFS. At one of them, it was an integral part of their product: at the time their product was launched, there was no other filesystem that did what they needed. I did not seek out jobs related to ZFS.

[protomyth]

If I at a community college have adopted ZFS, with the low resources I have, I would hardly believe it’s more trouble than it’s worth. In fact, it has saved me time, money (no more expensive RAID card), and effort.

I have more trouble with FreeBSD than ZFS, but even with those troubles ZFS hasn’t let me down.

[lmm]

I use it because it's a lot less trouble than what I did before. Separate md, lvm and filesystem means 3 different sets of commands; now I don't worry about partitions, mount points or anything like that, I just run one big zfs and throw all my disks in there. It stores all my data, and there's a single command interface which I only use for replacing disks (with zero data loss).

[_joel]

Well, I can speak from experience that a well known UK broadcaster uses it heavily as part of a video storage network system (specifically ZoL, but ZFS also used with Solaris too)