[koverstreet]

I take a harder line on repair than the ZFS devs, then :)

If I see an issue that causes a filesystem to become unavailable _once_, I'll write the repair code.

Experience has taught me that there's a good chance I'll be glad I did, and I like the peace of mind that I get from that.

And it hasn't been that bad to keep up on, thanks to lucky design decisions. Since bcachefs started out as bcache, with no persistent alloc info, we've always had the ability to fully rebuild alloc info, and that's probably the biggest and hardest one to get right.

You can metaphorically light your filesystem on fire with bcachefs, and it'll repair. It'll work with whatever is still there and get you a working filesystem again with the minimum possible data loss.

[magicalhippo]

As I said I do think ZFS is great, but there are aspects where it's quite noticeable it was born in an enterprise setting. That sending, recreating and restoring the pool is a sufficient disaster recovery plan to not warrant significant development is one of those aspects.

As I mentioned in the other subthread, I do think your commitment to help your users is very commendable.

[koverstreet]

Oh, I'm not trying to diss ZFS at all. You and I are in complete agreement, and ZFS makes complete sense in multi device setups with real redundancy and non garbage hardware - which is what it was designed for, after all.

Just trying to give honest assessments and comparisons.