6 ms·
Wow, that sucks. Another reason to use ZFS – you’d notice the corrupted files a lot sooner.
by douglasheriot 11y ago
Wow, that sucks. Another reason to use ZFS – you’d notice the corrupted files a lot sooner.
- Freaky 11y agoYup. I was seeing occasional corruption with my SanDisk Extreme Pro's and quite happy that ZFS was able to repair the damage each time. The problem appears to have gone away following a firmware update, touch wood.
- ThatPlayer 11y agoOr Btrfs on Linux.
- rleigh 11y agoIn theory, yes. Unfortunately, every time my Btrfs filesystems have encountered a hardware glitch, it has happily trashed the filesystem beyond recovery (including both drives in a RAID1 mirror, one of which was perfectly OK). I use ZFS now, and while some features are compatable with Btrfs, the implementation quality, documentation, and feature completeness, and tool quality set it well above where Btrfs is at.
- naranja 11y agoI fully second that: I'm using btrfs for / and ZFS for /srv. So many rashed filesystems beyond recovery on btrfs, so many joy, stability and easy tools for ZFS. I'm really about to consider to migrate / to ZFS now.
- icebraining 11y agoOr run a verification layer on top of whatever FS you use (e.g. running git fsck would discover corruption in your git indexed files too).