[kelnos]

It's a little weird to denounce the "block device sandwich" and then say that they should have used... a variation of the block device sandwich.

> There are very real reasons to use ZFS

I feel like, for the types of person GP is talking about, they likely don't really need to use ZFS, and luks+md+lvm would be just fine for them.

Like the GP, I have such a setup that's been in operation for 15-20 years now, with none of the original disks, probably 4 or 5 full disk swaps, starting out as a 4x 500GB array, which is now a 5x 8TB array. It's worked perfectly fine, and the only times I've come close to losing data is when I have done something truly stupid (that is, directly and intentionally ignored the advice of many online tutorials)... and even then, I still have all my data.

Honestly the only thing missing that I wish I had was data checksumming, and even then... eh.

[pixl97]

Run enough disks long enough and you'll find one that starts returning garbage while telling the OS everything is ok.

First time I had it happen was on a hardware raid device and a company lost 2 and a half days worth of data as any backups from when it started had bad data.

The next time I had it happen is using ZFS and we saw a flood of checksum errors and replaced the disk. Even after that SMART thought it was perfectly fine and you could send commands to it, you just got garbage back.

[conception]

How do you know you’ve lost no data? Do you checksum all your files? Bits gonna rot.