On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:24:37PM +0000, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote: > On 3/12/18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 03/11/2018 10:00 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote: > >> I'm happy to hear that. My rationale is based on past observations > >> of needlessly heated arguments and ZFS, due to its license splitting > >> the Linux community in half, appearing to be perfect fuel for such > >> a thread. > >> > >> Thanks for the wiki links. Never used ZFS on Linux because I avoid > >> out of kernel patches. Maybe I will give it a try on Linux as well. > > > > Well yes, the main reason people get heated about it I think is because > > it is out-of-tree kernel modules and as such are less reliably stable or > > some such. > > > > Based on how well archzfs keeps their binary repos up to date, I'm not > > 100% convinced on the stability. Moreso consider that it's difficult to > > bootstrap a system without zfs available, and if their binary repo does > > not match the current archiso... > > I'll stay away from it, thanks. I saw that Alpine Linux has good ZFS > support, but I didn't do anything serious with it. When it comes to > filesystems, I'm conservative, EXT4 and XFS on Linux. It's a pity > there's no modern filesystem to share volumes between FOSS kernels. > It's all some compromise that you might or might not accept. What's wrong with btrfs? Yeah, I know it is not marked "stable", but this is just a label. And people shying away from it doesn't help in advancing its stability either. Cheers, -- Leonid Isaev
