[hi-v-rocknroll]

Meta does a lot of things that don't scale for reliable/trustworthy systems and aren't suitable for all use-cases. (I also used to work there too.)

ZFS is only reliable where it was battled-tested: on Solaris. ZoL has been infinitely tinkered with and smashed up that it's nothing like running a Thumper as a NAS.

XFS + mdadm on Linux is, without a doubt, far more reliable than ZoL. Ask me how I know. I have the scars to prove it.

[ewwhite]

ZFS on Linux is absolutely fine in high-performance and critical computing applications.

I also owned a Thumper and Thor running Solaris in 2009. Much prefer Linux and the hardware solutions today.

[Gud]

ZFS has been plenty battle tested on FreeBSD.

[hi-v-rocknroll]

Not hardly, and not in the way you think. They replaced their arguably purer ZFS port to replace it with ZoL. As such, it's nowhere near as tested and proven as existing solutions like ext4 and xfs Redhat has deployed to millions of machines for decades. ZFS has too many religious fanboys who hype it without considering that boring and reliable are less risky than betting on code that hasn't had nearly the same scale of enterprise experience.

[Gud]

I am well aware of that change.

What specific problems are there with the ZFS implementation on FreeBSD? You claim it is not battle tested, I find it to be rock solid..

[kelnos]

> You claim it is not battle tested, I find it to be rock solid

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

[Gud]

Never said they were

[bsdooby]

Did you or other XFS users try out stratis?

[qamononep]

tell me your story

[Borg3]

Yeah, my setup too, XFS + mdadm (+ eventually LVM2). Rock solid. It might not have HW raid performance, but in terms of stability, flexibility and recovery its absolutly unbeatable!