Hacker News Reader

Comment by azalemeth | Hacker News Reader

I've had a lot to learn with zfs, but it's never just flat out lost my data, unlike btrfs (in about 2017)

Consider yourself lucky. There are data-corruption bugs all over the now-diverged ZFS codebase(s). Check the Solaris 11 SRU notes from the last 24 months for many examples.

Raid5?

Not sure if you are suggesting RAID5 as a relevant problem or solution, but it's arguably the former! :)

Regardless, ZFS has configurations equivalent to most "traditional" RAID options anyway (raidz1 is their RAID5) but with the added benefits of all the other great stuff ZFS gives you, like checksums, compression, deduplication, snapshots, etc.

Indeed the read5 implementation was (is?) notorious for some time (or still), well if you Google you'll soon find the stories.

Probably it was a guess that you were using a RAID5 mode of Btrfs, and that it was the reason for the failure.

Not using RAID5 or RAID6 modes on Btrfs is the first piece of advice people considering Btrfs get.

You are now even warned by mkfs.btrfs itself when you attempt to do it. [0]

[0]: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Btrfs-Wa...

Right, I failed to parse the comment as inquiring as to if that's the Btrfs issue referred to. Yes, I am familiar with Btrfs' RAID blunder. Somewhat ironic though since RAID5 is rarely the best idea regardless of the system implementing it

Reply on news.ycombinator.com