Is ZFS a suitable replacement for other Linux filesystems?

Zpool is a great feature. On top of the dozen(s) of amazing features in ZFS. The problem is, and ZFS admits this: If you don't run ECC ram Zpool can "accidentally" your whole hard drive (bit of a joke there, it can corrupt your drive as it attempts to correct bit rot that never happened).

This happens a lot more often then we really care to think about. (Ram corruption)

For most day-to-day linux users who are just using standard consumer desktop/laptops they don't have this protection. And ZFS can do more harm then good.

References:

https://pthree.org/2013/12/10/zfs-administration-appendix-c-...

Re: Is ZFS a suitable replacement for other Linux filesystems?

#6

Post by notacoward » Fri, Oct 10, 2014, 2:00 PM UTC

ryao wrote: post #2

I wrote the above article. I will try to answer any questions that I see here.

Nice article. I think you understate the importance of O_DIRECT, since it's the only way many kinds of software can work around the utter lameness of Linux local filesystems' durability semantics, but other than that I think it's extremely informative and useful.

Re: Is ZFS a suitable replacement for other Linux filesystems?

#7

Post by justincormack » Fri, Oct 10, 2014, 2:00 PM UTC

ryao wrote: post #2

I wrote the above article. I will try to answer any questions that I see here.

I can't read the tables on my phone as can't shrink them down (Firefox Android)... So as you don't seem to spell it out is it the case that SElinux should be fine on ZFS but PAX might not be?

Re: Is ZFS a suitable replacement for other Linux filesystems?

#8

Post by ryao » Fri, Oct 10, 2014, 2:02 PM UTC

valarauca1 wrote: post #5

ferrantim wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate?

Zpool is a great feature. On top of the dozen(s) of amazing features in ZFS. The problem is, and ZFS admits this: If you don't run ECC ram Zpool can "accidentally" your whole hard drive (bit of a joke there, it can corrupt your drive as it attempts to correct bit rot that never happened). This happens a lot more often then we really care to think about. (Ram corruption) For most day-to-day linux users who are just us…

This is a myth started by someone who did not understand how filesystems work. Not having ECC memory is no more of a handicap for ZFS than it is for any other filesystem.

Re: Is ZFS a suitable replacement for other Linux filesystems?

#9

Post by Qantourisc » Fri, Oct 10, 2014, 2:06 PM UTC

No, it doesn't has shrink, a future you want on a desktop imo. And occasionally on server when the customer doesn't provide enough storage (on the account of being cheap) and you have move things around to get things done.

Re: Is ZFS a suitable replacement for other Linux filesystems?

#10

Post by icantthinkofone » Fri, Oct 10, 2014, 2:07 PM UTC

I'm a bit confused. I always thought that proper use of ZFS required multiple drives just like RAID. Then I read an article where RAID was used with ZFS. Now I'm really confused so I'm taking the lazy way and asking here: is ZFS appropriate for a single drive system?