Why was I never told Linus is THAT based?

why was I never told Linus is THAT based?

Attached: basedlinus.png (898x448, 118.75K)

Attached: file.png (900x900, 742.41K)

TL;DR: linus is based

What's so exceptional about this? It's a pragmatic move that's easily understandable

His viewports in this post are completely outdated and just plain wrong. OpenZFS is extremely active and maintained, he was probably thinking only the old Solaris ZFS code was used. He doesn't know because he doesn't use it. And even though ZFS performs probably much better than he thinks, or have seen in the past, that's not exactly where it's meant to shine, which he didn't even mention.

ugh.. he failed to mention btrfs 9/10

Can I get a TLDR?

>OpenZFS
huh, never heard of it. how does it compare to say butter or og zfs?

linus doesn't like zfs license

its opener than og zfs

cuh how do u xpect me 2 read all that fr

Filesystem autism is the worst part of Linux. He'd be more based if he ripped out the code for everything but ext* and/or xfs and made people shut up.

ESL pasting Can I get a TLDR? after 50% of posts with more than 10 words

TLDR

Back in the days he would have rejected zfs outright if it caused user breakage, he never was about 'w-what I m-maintain not the r-r-rest'. It's really an example of backpedaling because the corporations tried to get him #cancelled and he was forced to bend the knee for the privilege of coming back.

It's an implementation of ZFS for linux. How does it compare to og ZFS? Glad you asked user. The og zfs in all upstreams (mainly freebsd therefore) has now been replaced by OpenZFS. Hope this answers the question.

What does he have against ZFS? I use it on my backup drives and it's awesome.

Hrm, do the truenas folks know this?

zfs is slow as hell and crazy resource-hungry, but it's great for non-performance-reliant storage arrays. You can put xfs on a caching frontend to get better mileage depending on usage pattern, too (or better yet, a ramdisk).

Is there any alternative if I want a reliable fs that keeps my data as safe as zfs?

>His viewports in this post are completely outdated and just plain wrong
No you retard, the license problem is still exactly the same.

You pay for the reliability with the performance user

Just RAID your drives like a real human bean. RAID 1 can do parallel reads as well so you actually get a speed up along your redundancy instead of a speed down.

Well it's already saved my data once so I'd say it's well worth it.
Can I get checksumming with RAID? Is there a way to scan my drives for errors and have them automatically corrected like ZFS?