Hacker News Reader

Why is that laughable? I do not think that it is more reliable than btrfs but it is not a crazy idea either. There are a whole bunch of people in these comments with very recent btrfs reliability issues which have affected them and nobody with recent zfs reliability issues.

View on HN

If anecdotes are meaningful (dubious, but I'll play along...), I can counter with mine: I've been running btrfs on bleeding edge kernels for a decade, and I've never seen a single data loss event.

ZFS has corruption bugs, this one was far worse than anything I've seen in btrfs recently: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-stable/2023-Novem...

I've been running it on hundreds of servers in prod since once of the lead devs gave a talk at LinuxCon 2014 saying it was good to go. Had a few performance issues here and there, especially on older kernels, but never any data loss

I also think you can't really compare them: ZFS more or less says "never use without ECC memory". BTRFS is run on just about any potato there is.

I myself would never run a file server without ECC and a UPS configured for a graceful shutdown. I have also never had any issues, but I only have about 10tb of data.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com