
Linus: Don't Use ZFS - rbanffy
https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpostid=189841
======
Jonnax
Here's his reasoning:

"honestly, there is no way I can merge any of the ZFS efforts until I get an
official letter from Oracle that is signed by their main legal counsel or
preferably by Larry Ellison himself that says that yes, it's ok to do so and
treat the end result as GPL'd.

Other people think it can be ok to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the
module interface makes it ok, and that's their decision. But considering
Oracle's litigious nature, and the questions over licensing, there's no way I
can feel safe in ever doing so.

And I'm not at all interested in some "ZFS shim layer" thing either that some
people seem to think would isolate the two projects. That adds no value to our
side, and given Oracle's interface copyright suits (see Java), I don't think
it's any real licensing win either."

~~~
Wowfunhappy
> And I'm not at all interested in some "ZFS shim layer" thing either

If there is no "approved" method for creating Linux drivers under licenses
other than the GPL, that seems like a major problem that Linux should be
working to address.

Expecting all Linux drivers to be GPL-licensed is unrealistic and just leads
to crappy user experiences. nVidia is _never_ going to release full-featured
GPL'd drivers, and even corporative vendors sometimes have NDAs which preclude
releasing open source drivers.

Linux is able to run proprietary userspace software. Even most open source
zealots agree that this is necessary. Why are all drivers expected to use the
GPL?

\---

P.S. Never mind the fact that ZFS _is_ open source, just not GPL compatible.

P.P.S. There's a lot of technical underpinnings here that I'll readily admit I
don't understand. If I speak out of ignorance, please feel free to correct me.

~~~
gh123man
I am also not an expert in this space - but if I understand correctly the
reason the linux Nvidia driver sucks so much is that it is not GPL'd (or open
source at all).

There is little incentive for Nvidia to maintain a linux specific driver, but
because it is closed source the community cannot improve/fix it.

> Why are all drivers expected to use the GPL?

I think the answer to this is: drivers are expect to use the GPL if they want
to be mainlined and maintained - as Linus said: other than that you are "on
your own".

~~~
celticmusic
My experience is that linux nvidia drivers are better than the competitors
open source drivers.

~~~
sterlind
Nvidia proprietary drivers work OK for me, mostly (I needed to spoof the video
card ID so KVM could lie to the Windows drivers in my home VFIO setup, but it
wasn't hard.)

But it means I can't use Wayland. Wayland isn't critical for me, but since
NVidia is refusing to implement GBM and using EGLStream instead, there's
nothing I can do about it. It simply isn't worth NVidia's time to make Wayland
work, so I'm stuck using X. If the driver were open-source someone would have
submitted a GBM patch and i wouldn't be stuck in this predicament.

I can't wait for NVidia to have real competition in the ML space so I can
ditch them.

~~~
prakhunov
No you can use Wayland as long as your window manager/environment supports
GBM. Gnome and KDE both do (Which for most Linux users is all that is needed).

Now you can't use something like Sway but their lead developer is too
evangelical for my taste so even if I had an AMD/Intel card I would never use
it.

~~~
quantummkv
> No you can use Wayland as long as your window manager/environment supports
> GBM.

You can do that on Intel and AMD drivers and other open source graphics
drivers, which due to being open source allow 3rd parties like redhat to patch
in GBM support in drivers and mesa when required.

Nvidia driver does not support GBM code paths. Therefore wayland does not work
on nvidia. And because nvidia driver is not open source, someone else cannot
patch GBM in.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
I'm fairly sure parent meant 'EGLStream', not GBM. KDE and GNOME's Wayland
compositors both support EGLStream.

------
blibble
I'll give up Linux on my servers before I give up ZFS

especially so given the recent petulant attitude that broke API compatibility
in the LTS branch just to spite the ZFS developers:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20186458](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20186458)

compete honestly on technical merit, rather than pulling dirty tricks that
you'd expect of Oracle or 1990's MS

~~~
m0zg
Pretty much my view as well. If Linux becomes incompatible with ZFS in any
way, I'll switch to FreeBSD.

That said, after the Oracle Java debacle, I can see why Linus would not be
receptive towards merging ZFS into the kernel. I just wish he argued the point
on legal issues alone instead of making up stories about non-existent
technical flaws in ZFS. The whole thing is basically a work of art. Oracle
should consider GPL-ing it and integrating it into Linux directly.

~~~
zippergz
I have been using FreeBSD for its better ZFS support for years, and it's
great. Highly recommended.

~~~
jupp0r
FreeBSD has been using the ZFS on Linux code for a while.

~~~
trasz
Not true, not yet.

~~~
jupp0r
Thanks for the correction, they decided to go that route in 2018, seems like
it’s not live yet.

------
reacharavindh
As a heavy user of ZFS and Linux, what else is there that even comes close to
what ZFS offers?

I want cheap and reliable snapshots, export & import of file systems like ZFS
datasets, simple compression, caching facilities(like SLOG and ARC) and decent
performance.

~~~
fgonzag
Bcachefs is probably the only thing that will get there. The codebase is clean
and we'll mantained, built from solid technology (bcache) and will include
most of the ZFS niceties. I just wish more companies would sponsor de project
and stop wasting money on BTRFS

~~~
forgotpwd16
>stop wasting money on BTRFS

You're saying they should stop supporting a project that was considered stable
by the time the other started being developed. Why do that? What makes
Bcachefs a better choice?

~~~
starfallg
Btrfs is the only FS I used that resulted in complete FS corruption losing
nearly all data on disk, not once, but 3 times.

After that, none of the features like compression, snapshots, COW or checksums
meant anything to me. I'm much happier with ext4 and xfs on lvm.

~~~
danieldk
In the 26 years or so I have used Linux, I have had corrupted filesystems with
reiserfs, XFS, btrfs, and ext[23]. In the case of reiserfs and XFS it was
practically impossible to recover the filesystem (IIRC reiserfs would reattach
anything that resembled a B-tree). For ext[23], it was surprisingly easy to
get back most of the data. Never had any corruption with ZFS or ext4. I didn't
try to fix the btrfs filesystem, since it was a machine that had to be
repurposed anyway.

~~~
mekster
When was it that XFS got corrupted on you? I think as RedHat embraces XFS, I
assume it's quite good now.

~~~
danieldk
Somewhere between being merged in mainline and 2009.

------
bromonkey
"Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than
anything else, I feel, and the licensing issues just make it a non-starter for
me." \- Linus

I have a strong feeling Linus has never actually used ZFS.

~~~
ggm
I also think he took a reasonable licence issue and conflated it with personal
opinion not backed by experience. Nobody who has actually run ZFS says its
just buzzwords.

~~~
nickik
The license issue is not actually so clear. The actual license is a good one.
Oracle itself it the bigger problem.

------
zelly
He's not wrong. ext4 is actually maintained. This matters. ZFS hasn't kept up
with SSDs. ZFS partitions are also almost impossible to resize, which is a
huge deal in today's world of virtualized hardware.

Honestly Linus's attitude is refreshing. It's a sign that Linux hasn't yet
become some stiff design-by-committee thing. One guy ranting still calls the
shots. I love it. Protect this man at all costs.

~~~
denkmoon
"ZFS hasn't kept up with SSDs."

What does that mean?

~~~
magicalhippo
ZFS (or at least ZoL) doesn't scale well to NVMEs:

[https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/8381](https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/8381)

------
kuon
I don't blame Linus, but I use ZFS a lot.

I'll drop ZFS the moment I have an alternative with the same features:

\- disk management with simple commands that can create raids in any modern
configuration

\- zero cost snapshots

\- import/export (zfs send/recv)

\- COW and other data integrity niceties

\- compression, encryption, dedup, checksums

I am very grateful to the OpenZFS community, and I think they deserve praises
for their work. Saying the code is not maintained is quite unfair.

~~~
ksec
So why drop ZFS then?

~~~
kuon
I don't want to drop ZFS for technical reasons, but I do share some of Linus
concerns about licensing.

------
gigatexal
He mentioned that he didn’t think it was being maintained. It’s more or less
been formed no?

Has Linus not seen the work that the OpenZFS folks are doing?

ZFS is amazing and I would soon go to a BSD flavor with a fun set of user land
utilities than give it up.

~~~
throw0101a
> _He mentioned that he didn’t think it was being maintained._

This news would come as a surprise to the folks at LLNL who work on ZoL:

* [https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs](https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs)

* [https://zfsonlinux.org/](https://zfsonlinux.org/)

~~~
mekster
Maybe meant not maintained by the first party?

~~~
throw0101a
ZoL is now the first-party for open sourced ZFS.

------
znpy
Remember kids: Oracle has no customers, only hostages!

~~~
majkinetor
Amen to that

------
Aldipower
Switching to FreeBSD now for my storage. Having a 8TB database setup. Primary
DB is running with LVM(cache)/XFS, which gives very satisfying speed, but I
really love my secondary mirror DB which storage is on ZFS. I do daily
snapshots and daily incremental backups via send/rcv to another ZFS location.
No other FS I am aware of provides me with this and that easy functionality.
Linus seems to never used ZFS. Although I can understand his issues with the
licensing, he is ranting about ZFS. That's a shame.

------
yjftsjthsd-h
Alright, Linus, I'll make you a deal: I'll consider dropping ZFS when you ship
a production-grade BTRFS (or reiserfs or anything else with the same
features).

~~~
annoyingnoob
Is reiserfs still maintained. After Hans went to prison I didn't think there
was much left beyond stagnation.

~~~
XorNot
They _really_ needed to rename it.

~~~
secabeen
Hans is eligible for parole this month.

~~~
XorNot
He still murdered a person. He is quite literally the worst sort of domestic
abuser. The kind who kills their partner.

------
atemerev
Do you know that FreeBSD is actually a usable modern OS these days? ;) I run a
FreeBSD desktop with Nvidia drivers without any issues. OpenJDK works great,
among other things. And it supports ZFS natively, and root on ZFS is the
default installation option.

~~~
t0astbread
Unfortunately some popular software (like Docker) doesn't work (afaik?) on
FreeBSD which might hold a lot of people back.

------
mikedilger
ZFS functionality dwarfs the minor issues Linus has with it in my opinion. I
find it to be well maintained, and not just bug fixes but new features keep
being added as well. If I couldn't use ZFS on linux anymore, I wouldn't
hesitate to setup another system just so I could keep using ZFS.

------
Ygg2
Probably should add Java to that list. The sooner Oracle stops existing, the
better.

~~~
akerro
Google and Microsoft too!

~~~
anon73044
Microsoft and Google contribute more to open source than any other company.

Source: [https://www.techrepublic.com/google-amp/article/microsoft-
ma...](https://www.techrepublic.com/google-amp/article/microsoft-may-be-the-
worlds-largest-open-source-contributor-but-developers-dont-yet-care/)
[https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/17/google-remains-the-top-
ope...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/17/google-remains-the-top-open-source-
contributor-to-cncf-projects/)

------
teinac
"Oracle's litigious nature". What a beautifully short and concise phrase. I
immediately had to write this down and stash it as an argument for the next
time someone at work pushes to go for "Oracle $product" after having received
a bottle of wine from their sales team.

------
nabla9
Honestly, at this point if I can't get ZFS in Linux I would move to FreeBSD
whenever I need big filesystem. How does Linux® Binary Compatibility layer
work on FreeBSD?

~~~
markjdb
It implements the x86 and x86_64 Linux system call ABI. Linux ELF binaries get
vectored to an alternate system call table implemented by the compatibility
layer. There are some other components like an implementation of a Linux-
compatible procfs. How well it works in practice really depends on how far off
the beaten path you go. There are lots of non-essential pieces that are not
implemented, but for example I know of people running Steam on FreeBSD.

------
barkingcat
Linus is correct in his arguments. As the lead for the linux project, he
shouldn't merge things that he feels isn't up to stuff from a license point of
view.

That's why we have different software.

If you asked Theo to merge an encryption algorithm for example into OpenSSH
and OpenBSD - he's going to have an opinion about it - and that's his thing.

Why would this be controversial at all?

~~~
t0astbread
Because people like ZFS and Linux so they want to combine the two.

~~~
barkingcat
Then they can go ahead and combine the two! ZFS on linux has a whole team of
maintainers.

Linus can do what he wants in regards to his branch (which because he's the
lead, becomes official Linux), but there's no reason any one else (or any
distro) can't do the integration. That's how open source works!

Of course, whoever does the integration may incur Oracle's wrath. Tread at
your own discretion. If those people like it so much that they will put up
their own money when Oracle's lawyers come calling, that's completely up to
them.

In my opinion, people who constantly clamour for such things against the
technical judgment of open source maintainers are freeloaders. They can
propose ideas, but just because the maintainer doesn't want to do it doesn't
mean they can scream bloody murder. Just put up your own money and fork it
and/or maintain your own fork, which is exactly what the ZFS on linux
community is doing - which is the right thing.

Anyone else can work with the ZFS on linux maintainers to take a bit of the
burden on, whether it's rebasing or updating docs on how the integration
works, etc. It's a group effort.

------
grizzles
It's too bad. ZFS is amazing and so ridiculously simple to use and manage if
you can find the recent docs among all the old docs online.

Anyone using Stratis? Just noticed it recently went to 2.0.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratis_(configuration_daemon)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratis_\(configuration_daemon\))
Curious to know how it handles device failures, removals, additions and so on.

------
danw1979
Polite reminder that Kent Overstreet is still plugging away at a new copy-on-
write FS for Linux called bcachefs. One day, I hope it'll replace ZFS for my
uses.

I'm not involved with the project in any way, apart from sending him a few
bucks a month on patreon. It's literally the only open source thing I sponsor;
it seems like a really worthwhile effort especially considering Linus' advice
here...

------
denkmoon
Perhaps if one wanted to use ZFS they should just use a kernel that supports
it?

ZFS is certainly "nice to have" on desktop, but the main use case is going to
be servers and NAS. You can use BSD there, it won't bite.

------
rubyn00bie
Or do use ZFS, just know that Oracle sucks and you have to go through hoops
because of it...

Also, while ZFS for me has been performant, that seems like a silly reason to
decide to use it or not use it. I think ZFS pools and snapshots would be among
the deciding factors to use it or not.

FWIW, as some other commenters have said, I'd rather drop Linux than drop ZFS.
I'm actually only even running Linux on my home server right now because I
decided to try Proxmox out on it months ago and it was soooo obscenely easy to
install I haven't bothered to reset it yet (though I need to for various
reasons; Proxmox itself being the first, ha).

Really all I care about for my host OS these days is the ability to do
virtualization and GPU pass-through... Linux is an option but not the only
one. Having a robust storage system where drives can fail, exist as one
logical drive, are replicated, has snapshots (including RAM), and I literally
don't have to worry about it-- that though, that's really only available with
ZFS.

~~~
nickik
Oracle has not actually done anything yet. Its the lack of believe in the
license.

------
INTPenis
Yet another user testimony: For simple volumes and snapshots at home I
switched from ZFS to BTRFS because ZFS on Fedora was giving me too many
issues. It simply wasn't integrated well enough into the system. Had nothing
to do with the ZFS FS implementation, merely the packaging.

Either way, BTRFS works for everything I need it to do and it's native.

------
pmiller2
More technical version of the same discussion here:
[https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAB9dFdsZb-
sZixeOzrt8F50h1pnUK2...](https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAB9dFdsZb-
sZixeOzrt8F50h1pnUK2W2Cxx8+xjhgd0=6xs7iw@mail.gmail.com/t/)

------
vermaden
Typical Linus bullshit ...

 _" Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than
anything else, I feel, and the licensing issues just make it a non-starter for
me."_

Yeah, just use XFS or EXT4 without ANY data consistency ... you can use FAT32
also, similar level filesystem.

------
phyzome
Until I have a viable alternative that gives me snapshotting (so I can make
consistent backups), that advice is worthless to me.

~~~
alperakgun
in the application-level, snapshotting is not a way to do "consistent backup"s
. consistent backup is a backup with a planned or known state when
"restore"ing.

~~~
SignalsFromBob
Sure it is. Quiesce your application, take a snapshot, then resume
application. Then you can back up the snapshot. The alternative can be a
lengthy downtime for your application.

------
scoutt
Maybe offtopic, but I'm impressed by the rest of the conversation that
generated that message from Linus: there is a whole thread in which Linus gets
to explain with detail various locking mechanism in the kernel, pros and cons,
etc.

I think we don't see this normally happening; situations in which the
(technical) responsible for the Apple or MS kernels get to answer question and
explain with such level of detail.

I think also that is even more interesting than the original blog post that
originated that thread. Someone should harvest all these Linus comments and
order them in some kind of "lectures" library.

------
damm
His reasons may not be perfect but he's right.

If you use a filesystem that isn't mainline and it breaks it's all on you to
figure it out and fix it. Having used experimental filesystems before and been
burned I would rather stick with what I know and won't change overnight.

I'll keep an eye open for new filesystems of course but if it's not mainline
unless it's for personal hacking no.

> I own several SBC's (Small Board Computer) that do not run mainline kernels.
> The company that makes them provides their own patched kernel so if it
> breaks I'm up creek but I know who to bitch at.

------
ggm
I kind of wish somebody with money took Oracle into court on ZFS and
established it doesn't have Oracle taint, so we can move on. Java would be
good too but that fight went to the wrong point of law to argue. Opensolaris
.. I feel meh about but perhaps it too needs this.

Money doesn't solve all problems, but money can solve legal problems c/f the
lawsuits people like newegg do, to get rid of the IPR leeches. (And
cloudflare?)

------
squarefoot
So what would be a viable ZFS alternative on a Linux based NAS I'm planning to
build in a few months? I'm currently running Nas4Free on a giant rack sized
thing I built using a Mini-ITX Atom board years ago, and ZFS works like a
charm, but I also intend to move some day to the ARM architecture which
unfortunately the *BSD based NAS software doesnt support (yet). I'm tempted by
this smaller hardware in particular:
[https://wiki.kobol.io/helios64/intro/](https://wiki.kobol.io/helios64/intro/)
So far the only viable option would be Openmediavault which supports ZFS only
through external modules which I'd be not entirely comfortable with. I'd only
arrange disks as RAID1 pairs however.

~~~
beatgammit
I use BTRFS and it works fine. Just don't use RAID5/6 and you should be good
to go.

I've also heard success stories using ZFS on Linux, but I haven't bothered
because I'd just rather use something that's in the kernel instead of
something outside it.

------
geoff-dot
Are there any lawyers that can verify the legal claims made? Anyone can file a
lawsuit at anytime for whatever reason, that doesn't mean the lawsuit is
valid. Sure using ZFS on your home system or even a small implementation is
not a big deal but if there's a company with money lawsuits happen.

I would think the wide availability and usage of ZFS and the fact that this is
no longer 20 years ago when companies would sue as if they were 19th century
tycoons there must be some sort of "well you let ZFS be used this long without
suing you can't just let it be open for so long and then sue when it is
profitable" sort of statue in American law. Again I'm not a lawyer and I know
enough about law to know I do not know enough about law.

~~~
rossdavidh
To be honest, given Oracle's history, I'm not sure I would even trust a
lawyer's opinion, since it could still cost you a lot of money to defend
against an Oracle lawsuit even if you win.

------
esjeon
Don't go too far people. Linus's criticism against ZFS is concise: buzzword &
licensing.

Here, Linus is putting emphasis on license, not technical whatever details of
ZFS. He clearly doesn't use ZFS and is not even interested in the problem ZFS
solves. He is only "interested" is his (and community's) control over the ZFS
source code.

So, his logic basically becomes this:

ZFS is not mainline-able, so veto it until Oracle changes its attitude - a
simple old FOSS infestation tactic.

So, please, move on, people. The discussion is not even about file system...

~~~
nickik
Actually what stops mainline integration is the believe of the community in
the strength of open source licensing.

------
human_banana
mdam + LVM + ext4 does everything I need to do and more. Thin and thick
provisioning, ssd caching, snapshots. If I were to use another file system it
would be something like ceph or glusterfs.

------
rvp-x
Oracle doesn't own all the rights to OpenZFS, people are intentionally adding
their own copyright to ensure it stays under a copyleft license, and Oracle
can't make it closed source by owning the rights (which they did with the old
version).

------
dangerface
Title is miss-leading tbh, I know its a direct quote from the article but it
takes it out of the context of "I don't want to support your third party
code".

------
teekert
Nicely written Linus, very soft and considerate of other's feelings. Not so
funny anymore but overall it will make more people happy :)

------
foxhop
Both my main servers at my house use ZFS, neither use Linux on bare metal.
FreeNAS (multiple ZFS mirrors) and SmartOS running a ZFS mirror.

------
shmerl
I hope bcachefs will get to usable state soon.

------
dooglius
> and given Oracle's interface copyright suits (see Java)

This seems pretty ironic, given that the whole problem is Linux developers
trying to claim and enforce that only other GPL code is allowed to use its
APIs (which, IMHO, goes beyond both the intent and letter of the license). The
issues aren't exactly the same, but Linux sure seems to be a lot closer to
Oracle than to Google here.

------
1MachineElf
The situation rules out Linux for many potential applications and side
projects I might undertake.

------
vinayakkulkarni
Reminds me of Facebook and React licensing scandal back in 2016/17.

Can never trust someone who easily changes their licenses from private to
public. Who knows in future they might change it back to private!?

------
emsign
Yes, don't use ZFS! Use FreeBSD and ZFS!

------
new_realist
The Linux kernel broke user space by egregiously decreeing that kernel modules
cannot use certain CPU unless they are GPL. Derived work, my ass.

------
rusk
So is Linus back from his break now?

------
jubalfh
linus mouthing off on something he doesn't care to learn about: news at
eleven.

------
0x8BADF00D
Honestly ext4 is fine for most use cases, even SSDs. If you really need more
performance look at HAMMER, it’s meant for high availability. At that point
you shouldn’t be running Linux anyway, even with RT_PREEMPT it’s not going to
be the most performant for those kinds of RTOS workloads anyway.

~~~
wahern
HAMMER2 is now the default on DragonflyBSD. If I made a bunch of money during
the boom and could spend my days doing open source (like Matt Dillon), porting
HAMMER2 might be one of the projects I'd pick up.

~~~
0x8BADF00D
That would be a neat project. It’s hard to set aside the time when you don’t
have much in the time bank. I’ve been wanting to do a lot more research on
kernel scheduling, writing my own alternative scheduler, and more research on
RTOS design and real-time computing in general.

------
ailideex
So my take on this is that the future is Ceph and you would do better running
single node ceph than ZFS or BTRFS.

------
BonfaceKilz
Oracle rears its head again lolz

------
bigcohoneypot
I'm glad Linus is now acting as legal council for Linux. It's scary that he is
implying he's making these decisions without aid to council

------
new_realist
ZFS threatens the power of Linux and therefore Linus’ job. That’s the long and
short of it. Mac and Windows have been able to maintain stable interfaces for
binary kernel drivers for 20 years.

------
maximente
i wouldn't use ZFS either. my guess is 90% of ZFS users have never run failure
scenarios and grappled with potential failure modes of ZFS, nor even know that
you really need ECC RAM to run ZFS without fear of existential data corruption
due to bit flips.

furthermore, the allure of ZFS means people aren't testing their disaster
plans until it's too late, bc ZFS is "resilient".

lastly, data recovery is expensive as all hell if even possible. i am talking
order of magnitude four figures for 100s of GBs and sketchy probabilities.

ZFS is the ultimate "pet" in the pets vs. cattle continuum. in a world where
shoddy engineering and "break things fast" is the zeitgeist, i'm happy to use
a classic dumb FS like ext4 and pathologically backing it up and testing said
backups.

i would not risk any of my personal treasured data to ZFS due to inherent
existential threats. i would implore ZFS users to evaluate and test their
setups, and especially use ECC RAM - like, starting now - to protect their
assets.

~~~
bbatha
> you really need ECC RAM to run ZFS

This is FUD. ZFS does as well, if not better than the average file system with
its focus on integrity, online scrubs etc. On the other hand "use ECC RAM" is
standard best practices for any mission critical data, no file system magic is
going to fix computer RAM lying to you 100% of the time. Its the standard
recommendation for ZFS because its rare to be deployed in environments that
can tolerate data corruption.

> pathologically backing it up and testing said backups.

ZFS doesn't remove the need for backups and no one seriously makes that
arguments. Though snapshots + send/receive make them very easy to do in ZFS.

~~~
ants_a
I've detected broken memory chips thanks to BTRFS checksumming finding errors,
luckily before it had a chance to corrupt any written data. So if anything, a
properly checksummed filesystem makes non-ECC RAM less dangerous.

------
djsumdog
So, is Linus pretty much the same guy? I know he took some time off and the
kernel team adopted a code-o-conduct, and had that introspective e-mail ...
but now that he's back ... is it any different?

~~~
Someone1234
Because he didn't attack any individual, use derogatory language, or break the
code of conduct?

He never agreed to roll over and agree with every technological persuasion, he
agreed to be nicer to people. This was nice to people, but rude to a
technology (ZFS), that seems consistent.

