[nix23]

Since all those tools are from different dev's the system gets more complex. But hey if you really think that ZFS is to complex to hold 55 petabytes because it has to many potential bugs you should tell them:

https://computing.llnl.gov/projects/zfs-lustre

[imiric]

Thankfully I don't have to manage 55 petabytes of data, but good luck to them.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned "for personal use"?

> Since all those tools are from different dev's the system gets more complex.

I fail to see the connection there. Whether software is developed by a single entity or multiple developers has no relation to how complex the end user system will be.

But many small tools focused on just the functionality I need allows me to build a simpler system overall.

[nix23]

>Did you miss the part where I mentioned "for personal use"?

Since ZFS is simpler to use then your setup, is used to store 55PB of data without a single bit error since 2012, i don't see why someone should use inferior stuff, even when it's "personal use".

>But many small tools focused on just the functionality I need allows me to build a simpler system overall.

Sometimes monoliths are better for example the network-stack and storage....maybe kernels (big Maybe here)

[funcDropShadow]

> Whether software is developed by a single entity or multiple developers has no relation to how complex the end user system will be.

The first part of this sentence is probably true, as far as I see, but the complexity of a system perceived by the user depends primarily on the "surface" of the system. That surface includes the UI, the documentation and important concepts you have to understand for effective usage of the system. And in that regard, ZFS wins hands down against LUKS + LVM + SnapRaid + your FS of choice. Some questions a user of that LVM stack has to answer, aren't even asked of a ZFS user. E.g. the question how to split the space between volumes or how to change the size of volumes.