Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

For an article with that tone, you would think the author would have more experience. It's literally filled with flawed and uninformed or inexperienced thinking.

From the idea that SMART reliably detects hard drive failures.. to dismissing data protection for no reason other than it sounds unlikely to the author (which in several cases I know personally to be false... because I've experienced those failures).

ZFS is a very well designed filesystem. Things weren't added haphazardly or because they sounded cool. The author would do well to try to understand why those protections were added.

Almost all of the protections are also afforded by plain old RAID without ZFS. Why waste space on a CRC when you still get to run a redundancy check? If FS structure is corrupted CRC won't save you anyway. An FSCK might instead.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact