On 2020-11-27 16:03, Karel Gardas wrote: ,,, > To me this looks like too much pray for luck. With such amount of data, > I would stay with ZFS...
I've heard that from a lot of people. And yet, those same people, when pressed, will tell you that a ZFS-equipped system will crash much more often than simpler file systems. That's one heck of a real penalty to pay for a theoretical advantage. ZFS is kinda the IPv6 of file systems. A few good ideas trying to solve a one issue... and then they went way overboard trying to pack too much else into it. I've setup some cool stuff using ZFS (dynamically sized partitions, snapshots, zfs sends of snapshots to other machines, etc), but man, I spent a comical amount of time babysitting and fixing file system problems. The 1980s are over, file systems should Just Work now. If you are babysitting them constantly, something ain't right. If someone wants to add a ZFS-like "scrubbing" feature to ffs, I'd be all for it. But not for the penalties that come with ZFS. Nick.
