On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:24:37PM +0000, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
On 3/12/18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general <arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 03/11/2018 10:00 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
I'm happy to hear that. My rationale is based on past observations of needlessly heated arguments and ZFS, due to its license splitting the Linux community in half, appearing to be perfect fuel for such a thread.
Thanks for the wiki links. Never used ZFS on Linux because I avoid out of kernel patches. Maybe I will give it a try on Linux as well.
Well yes, the main reason people get heated about it I think is because it is out-of-tree kernel modules and as such are less reliably stable or some such.
Based on how well archzfs keeps their binary repos up to date, I'm not 100% convinced on the stability. Moreso consider that it's difficult to bootstrap a system without zfs available, and if their binary repo does not match the current archiso...
I'll stay away from it, thanks. I saw that Alpine Linux has good ZFS support, but I didn't do anything serious with it. When it comes to filesystems, I'm conservative, EXT4 and XFS on Linux. It's a pity there's no modern filesystem to share volumes between FOSS kernels. It's all some compromise that you might or might not accept.
What's wrong with btrfs? Yeah, I know it is not marked "stable", but this is just a label. And people shying away from it doesn't help in advancing its stability either. Cheers, -- Leonid Isaev