On Thu, 2023-04-27 at 15:54 +0200, tastytea wrote: > btrfs and zfs have some useful features for normal use cases. the > transparent compression can save a lot of space and even increase speed > in some cases, the checksumming guarantees that you will never get a > corrupt file and snapshots make backups and rollbacks easier.
Does the transparent compression incur an overhead cost in processing, memory use, or disk writes? I feel like it certainly has to at least use more memory. Sorry if that's an RTFM question. > however, they do need a bit more maintenance (described in their > respective wiki articles). This is the part that is ultimately up to OP to decide. Personally I just want to read and write data without thinking about it or maintaining anything. I maintain enough other stuff as it is :) > > [2] I'm aware that zfs and others can do snapshots for recovery and > > "roll back" but there is no replacement for versioned hard copy > > backups > > you can send snapshots to other drives or computers, either as full or > incremental backups. i'd say it's pretty much the same. 😉 Okay, that's pretty clever, I have to admit. Incremental snapshots that can be off-sited, handled by the filesystem itself? I'll keep this in mind the next time I re-do a server machine.
