Return to



zfs is a legacy filesytem

sun be dead and gone fam get with the times


Let's fix Arch!

shots fired



What’s the file system that has replaced it feature wise and dependability wise?

1 Like


most probably given your arguing for systemd(zfs) vs init(others)

theres already software to do snapshots and stuff like that, you just get to pick and assemble what features you want or dont want. zfs just has massive bloat all the shit in there where you want it or not. and for linux is still not support, possibly never will be(talking 100% no patches in the kernel full support)

i mean how many servers seem to work just fine even though any modern intel system requires fat to be used for u/efi support? i mean it works in some operating systems with legacy booting to use zfs as the /boot im sure but thats not most systems



Well ZOL may become what BSD pulls from according to some articles and the OpenZFS meetings. It may take some work but I believe what Wendell and others are wanting is pretty useful and the comment you made is well worthless to the conversation…

1 Like


I’m fairly confident you just got trolled.



I’m sorry for sidetracking this topic. I hope we can get it back on track:
Grub booting from zfs snapshots on manjaro.



All good, So to forward it, I’ve got my zfs system set up and I’ve been reading through the btrfs equivalent packages to see how they do it.



Seems to happen a lot lately




I was referring to the comments about ZFS being obsolete an bloated.

1 Like



as in from 2005 you know before ext4 was a thing

bloated as in
usual recommendation is for 1gb(of usable free non system memory) per tb of storage space

you trolled yourself, was just sayin this shiz old and still doesnt actually work in linux(as in the kernel as provided)

1 Like


It works in Linux, it just doesn’t live in the same repo. You don’t have to build a custom Linux kernel to use ZFS.

ext4 is ext2 with just a few extra bells and whistles, so try 1993. That’s legacy.

Bloated depends on your priorities. It’s not designed for embedded systems, it’s designed for critical storage servers. It works reasonably well on the desktop and for general purpose servers where there is no greater than 1000x as much disk space as non-committed memory.

If you have more than 1000x as much disk space as RAM that you’re willing to use to improve performance, then you can use less than the recommended amount of RAM and live with the sub-optimal performance.



obviously you dont have to compile it yourself

im saying if you download a kernel from an official source you will not have zfs support

you will need other 3rd party software, same as if say you want to use apt-get you will need to download debian based specific packages

this isnt like with ext4 where any kernel after 2.6.28 will support it. or say solaris/opensolaris, freebsd support it

lets say you have a basic nas for doing backups, you have a massive 5 drives at 10-12tb so were talking firm recommendation of minimum of 64gb of ram, for you know a system with a massive load of one maybe two users at a time, like streaming a plex white some script runs to do backups, realistically speaking if all you needed to do was verify data didnt become corrupt, theres no reason the system would actually use more than 4~8gb of ram if you were to use a more minimalist solution, i mean if you have some 40gb ethernet and really high performance ssd array like 8 nvme in a raid 0 or something sure you might need more ram to not limit your speed when you send a 80gb file or something

i mean if i were to compare a md5 hash for every single file on a drive for 5 drives/volumes i might use a massive 1gB of ram or something(in theory, in reality much less, even if you had a concurrent speed of say 200mB/s read you dont need to store all the entire file into memory for generating the hash, probably be like 1/10-1/4 the theoretical usage)

granted it does alot more then check for corruption, but if you dont need any of that stuff, you still waste all the exponentially more resources doing it in some, id argue in most home cases

1 Like


a userland either. That’s sort of the deal with Linux, it’s not enough to do anything by itself.

The recommendations for how to tune ZFS are not made with “one maybe two users” in mind, so you’ll be fine.



LOL not even. I’ve got 16GB of ram on my freenas server that runs Plex and a few other services and has 48TB of storage.

You’re making poorly researched arguments and conflating two filesystems that are designed for significantly different use cases.

I’m putting an end to this argument now. It’s getting very off topic. If you want to make an EXT4 vs ZFS thread, go for it.



your boy here already confirmed the recommendation is for 1gb per tb for optimal performance as a general rule of thumb, in that you can use less if you dont care it wont be as fast as it could be

like a true mod make a counter point and then claim the argument is over

bruh you know what i mean. if you boot an install media for say fedora, ubuntu, slackware, mint, debian, arch etc how many will as shipped support zfs as root as /boot etc? is basically none if it was natively supported in the kernel would probably be in 95% of distros within 1 year

which would solve the problem sgt mentioned n the op, meaning he could have just stayed on fedora if he wanted

for recommendation am saying yes i consider that bloat when its suggested a more sophisticated version of a usb external drive have more ram then a users main system, possibly more then would be recommended for say a 4k video editing/3d modeling workstation

i mean if you’re linus media group and have multiple people pulling large files at the same time/lots of video coming in, going out to offsite backups etc sure a more robust higher spec system can definitely be justified, but if were talking a smol box in the back of a closet with 6 drives only one person ever uses and thats just to put shit on, pull it back off once in a forever should work fine with like 4gb of ram

not saying it doesnt do a bunch of cool stuff with those resources assuming one has a use for those features, but it also uses a bunch of resources to do those things





Why limit it to ZFS and EXT? Can we have multiple? BTRFS, XFS, and F2FS (waay better than FAT) ftw



Sure, I just forked this thread out because people were derailing an otherwise serious thread.

1 Like