Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jeltz 698 days ago
Why is that laughable? I do not think that it is more reliable than btrfs but it is not a crazy idea either. There are a whole bunch of people in these comments with very recent btrfs reliability issues which have affected them and nobody with recent zfs reliability issues.
1 comments
jcalvinowens 698 days ago
If anecdotes are meaningful (dubious, but I'll play along...), I can counter with mine: I've been running btrfs on bleeding edge kernels for a decade, and I've never seen a single data loss event.

ZFS has corruption bugs, this one was far worse than anything I've seen in btrfs recently: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-stable/2023-Novem...

link
tiberious726 698 days ago
I've been running it on hundreds of servers in prod since once of the lead devs gave a talk at LinuxCon 2014 saying it was good to go. Had a few performance issues here and there, especially on older kernels, but never any data loss
link
bjoli 698 days ago
I also think you can't really compare them: ZFS more or less says "never use without ECC memory". BTRFS is run on just about any potato there is.

I myself would never run a file server without ECC and a UPS configured for a graceful shutdown. I have also never had any issues, but I only have about 10tb of data.

link