@scanlime I have used ZFS since about 2007 (when it was added to FreeBSD). my take on ZFS is that it in many ways is like IPv6. It is an ivory tower design of what a filesystem 'should' be, and is neither practical nor pragmatic on what a filesystem needs to be. It is over-complicated in the wrong parts (and yes, I know this makes me an absolute heretic in the #FreeBSD community)

@david @scanlime multiple bad takes in a single post :) Both ipv6 and zfs are great!

OP should be happy about his mirror being resilvered :)

I've also used zfs since late 00s and I absolutely love it. I find it both pragmatic and practical to the extent that all other filesystems look like museum pieces in comparison.

I would be interested to hear what you use as an alternative?

@tykling @scanlime I use stock UFS with or without journaling (but always with softupdates) depending on usecase (for example, databases are self journaled, adding journaling on top of journaling only adds additional write load.. and journaled write load is synchronous, so you take a double hit in a very expensive operation for no benefit). I find ZFS to be wildly unpredictable in terms of performance (combination of ARC interactions and lack of preservation of file locality) and (1/2)

@tykling @scanlime I've had many times more data unavailability due to ZFS than I have had with other filesystems. Just within the past month I tried to remove a cache partition from a running ZFS system (that was idle at the time, even though it shouldn't matter), and it locked the entire filesystem, and because of where the lock was zfs wouldn't unmount and I had to hard reset). I hit these issues *all the time*. Tried to import an exported zfs set and randomly some wouldn't import