Comment on [deleted]

• AbidanYre@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I don’t know what that other dude’s on about.

  The general consensus on zfs is (or at least was) that your need 1Gb of RAM per terabyte of zpool. Especially if you want to run deduplication.

  If you don’t need dedupe the requirements drop significantly.

  source
• Flamekebab@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Looks like I angered people by not loving ZFS. I don’t feel like being bagged on further for using it wrong or whatever.

  source

  • non_burglar@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I didn’t downvote you, I’m genuinely curious what you mean about zfs being a “pig”.

    source

    • Flamekebab@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I was trying to use it for a mirrored setup with TrueNAS and found it to be flakey to the point of uselessness. I was essentially told that I was using it wrong because I had USB disks. It allowed me to set it up and provided no warnings but after losing my test data for the fifth time (brand new disks - that wasn’t the issue) I gave up and setup a simple rsync job to mirror data between the two ext4 disks.

      If losing power effectively wipes my data then it’s no damn use to me. I’m sure it’s great in a hermetically sealed data centre or something but if I can’t pull one of the mirrored disks and plug it into another machine for data recovery then it’s no damn good to me.

      source

      • JGrffn@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Wait so you built a pool using removable drives, and was surprised it didn’t work? Lmao

        That’s like being angry that a car wash physically hurt you because you drove in on a bike, then using a hose on your bike and claiming that the hose is better than the car wash.

        Zfs is a low level system meant for pcie or sata, not USB, which is many layers above sata & pcie. Rsync was the right choice for this scenario since it’s a higher level program which doesn’t care about anything other than just the data and will work over USB, Ethernet, wifi, etc., but you gotta understand why it was the right choice instead of just throwing shade at one of the most robust filesystems out there just because it wasn’t designed for your specific usecase.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • non_burglar@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Ah, I hear you, and sorry you had that experience. GUI controls of ZFS aren’t usually very intuitive.

        Also, ZFS assumes it has direct access to the block device, and certain USB implementations (not UAS) use ~sync~ operations that sit between the HAL and userland somewhere. So ZFS likes direct-attached storage, it’s a caveat to be sure.

        If you ever change your mind, klarasystems.com/zfs/ has a ton of reading and tutorials on ZFS.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Andres4NY@social.ridetrans.it ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        @Flamekebab @non_burglar Sounds like snapraid might be a better fit for your needs. Since it runs over top of the filesystem, if you lose a disk you can still access files from the other disk(s). It's better than rsync, in that it would provide regular data validation ('snapraid scrub' once per week or so). It is more designed to work in raid5 rather than mirroring (raid1) setup, however.

        source