Hello!<div><br></div><div>Completely agree with you.</div><div><br></div><div>With old style filesystems we use so much non uniform crap like mdraid, dm raid and hardware solutions like lsi and adaptec.</div><div><br></div><div>There are so much different tools, so much details and really complex configurations.</div><div><br></div><div>With ZFS we have only singletool (ring!) for ewerything!</div><div><br></div><div>We expect so much data corruptions, downtimes for fsck and even full data losses with ext3 and ext4. And hardware RAID is too buggy (adaptec is real bunch of bugs)</div><div><br></div><div>But there are no any issues regarding customer data with zfs. </div><div><br>On Friday, July 24, 2015, Dietmar Maurer <<a href="mailto:dietmar@proxmox.com">dietmar@proxmox.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">> The point is that in your use case ZFS works very well and saves you 1TB of<br>
> disk space. Great for you. For my use case the overhead of learning and<br>
> deploying ZFS greatly outweighs the handful of GBs I might potentially save in<br>
> disk space.<br>
<br>
Don't get me wrong, but zfs is totally simply to use and deploy - much simpler<br>
than anything else (considering all the great feature it provides).<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Users mailing list<br>
<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'Users@openvz.org')">Users@openvz.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users" target="_blank">https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br>Sincerely yours, Pavel Odintsov<br>