Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

As an enthusiast/home-user I use ZFS, and it has saved my data in situations where no linux filesystem I've tried would. XFS doesn't have an fsck either; more to the point, more does btrfs, so you can't really give that as a reason why btrfs is more suitable for home users.


> XFS doesn't have an fsck either

Oops, actually back in 1995 when XFS was made available, it hadn't any fsck because it supposedly didn't need it. However, they finally made "xfs_repair" available one year later, which while not being called "fsck" proper, still is the same thing.

BTW one thing that xfs_repair did for me was getting back most of the data from an xlv array with a failed drive. Isn't it awesome?


Did I somehow portray that I didn't like ZFS in my post, that it wasn't mature? Or that I feel that btrfs is suitable for home users as it is today?


You said "ZFS isn't for the typical enthusiast/home-user". I don't think that's true (or rather, while there are problems with using ZFS as such a user, the problems with all the alternatives are worse); I would advise such users to use ZFS.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: