Hector Martin

On top of that, ZFS don't need fsck.

Disks dying is a normal failure mode. A hardware glitch corrupting RAID6 stripes during disk replacement necessitating a roll back to the old disk and thus a patchwork of old and new disk state isn't. ZFS works great until it doesn't and then you can't fix it.

"ZFS doesn't need fsck" is what they want you to think. Then something happens they don't plan for and you're screwed. Go look around for ZFS data loss stories, they exist.

I'm fully aware of the data loss stories. Most of the losses stems from improperly configured storage pools.

"improperly configured" = "you did something we didn't expect or plan for". I'd rather have a filesystem that at least attempts to provide recovery tools for when you make a "mistake", thanks.

I'm fully aware I was playing with fire when I had that RAID fuckup during disk exchanges, and I'm very happy XFS had an fsck that could fix the issues and get me back up and running with ~no data loss. I guarantee ZFS does not magically handle that scenario, it'd need an fsck.

I'm not claiming it's bulletproof but ZFS has proven over and over again to be resilient and rock solid. ZFS is fundamentally different to traditional file systems. Includes transaction rollback, even a debugger if you really need that.

Apparently you know much more than the ZFS file system and storage engineers combined. Let's put it to rest and say we agree to disagree