Couldn't care less. Big difference.Linux users can really care less about a new Microsoft file-system
All the data checksum'ng in the world isn't going to save your data if your hard drive decides to take a shit on you.
All the raid-like features in the world isn't going to protect your data from a 'rm -rf *'.
If you think you can depend on your FS, any FS, to protect your data your wasting money, time and effort... because you are doing it wrong.
janc and johnc means the same. Funny.
Last edited by kraftman; 01-17-2012 at 04:40 PM.
Yeah... "very active development"... ETA... sometime in 2035.
Even MS is embarrassing Linux in FS support.
No, you can't. You are absolutely incorrect with that assessment.
The ZFS features are useful for increasing availability and integrity of available data. These features are needed more and more as you deal with larger and larger data sets. In a year or two those features are going to be the bare minimum requirements for dealing with average sized company's data. Ext4 or XFS, in this respect, is not adequate. They are not a substitute for backups.
If your playing around with your own data then that is your own risk. If you think you can get away with this attitude in a professional environment then you are a menace to your employer's data.
With proper backups your data is safer with Fat32 file system then with ZFS and no proper backups.
Last edited by drag; 01-17-2012 at 06:00 PM.
If windows server 8 will be released in 2013 btrfs has a year to mature.
Last edited by kraftman; 01-17-2012 at 06:28 PM.