
Ubuntu Developers Seem to Be Pursuing ZFS Root Partition Support on the Desktop - rbanffy
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ubuntu-Desktop-ZFS-Root-Again
======
mises
Can anybody explain practical differences between btrfs, zfs, and xfs? I've
used reiser in the past, but I understand maintenance is low these days.

Curious to know pros and cons; considering which to use. This is for three
purposes: one, personal computer. Disk partitioned among 3 os. Two, storage
server. This involves a hodgepodge of old disks I want to pool and use as one
virtual disk. I do have an ssd in the mix, which I wish to use as a caching
drive (in case writes are too slow/reads too fast for the hdds). Raid is not a
huge priority, but parity (raid5?) would be nice if possible across multiple
disks with very different sizes. Three, application server. These store some
data, but largely run from ram (alpine linux sys mode install). Reliability is
good for these.

If anyone can advise what is best, that would be appreciated.

~~~
420codebro
The short answer is BTRFS, ZFS, and XFS pretty much have feature parity these
days. However, I am partial to ZFS as it is by far the most mature and widely
installed. I have never lost a bit of data due to data rot in any of my ZFS
deployments.

Word of advice, stay away from parity bits. Mirrors are supreme. Stripe the
mirrors (RAID10) for the level of performance needed.

~~~
equalunique
I suppose BRTFS, ZFS, and XFS have feature parity in the sense that both are
filesystems which work on Linux, but without checksumming to detect silent
data corruption, to me XFS doesn't seem like it's in the same league as BTRFS
and ZFS (and HAMMER(2) and Bcachefs).

