I use xfs for linux.
The 2 parts I bolded are basically what I was saying. Linux kernel for a long time has had the idea of a "tainted" kernel module.Linus doesn't want ZFS code inside the Linux kernel code itself, because they can't claim ownership on the code. Rhis is why they are enhancing BTRFS. However, you can use it as a module, like Nvidia proprietary drivers. Whether it's easy to do due to syscalls and APIs is a different story.
"is not reliable at all" is equal to garbage. It is garbage, period.Actually no. BTRFS have an ok performance and a good footprint of cpu/ram usage. The problem is that isn't reliable at all, and I'm not talking just about RAID5/6, I see scenarios that was unacceptable to production, at least for me (e.g mirrors that wasn't "mirrored" properly, borked metadata mirror with an idle machine, and the list goes on).
Well, you want examples, ok. CoreOS, which was a lightweight Linux distribution for containerization until its discontinuation in 2019, moved in 2014 to Btrfs as their default file system.Well, you told an interesting story, but where did you get that from? If there's a Wikipedia article about that, link to that... If there was an announcement on the project page, link to that. Links give credibility to the stories shared.
What are the RAM requirements for ZFS? Does it depend on …
find
command to walk / the amount grew to 132 M.… heard that ZFS needs at least 1GB of RAM to function.
Is that still the case for 13.0 …
… I hear from other people that the situation is much improved with 13.0. Still a good idea to limit ARC to remove any potential contention. …
vfs.zfs.arc.sys_free
vfs.zfs.arc_free_target
…a shot or two of KDE Plasma running Firefox, LibreOffice, GIMP and a few other applications in a virtual machine with around 1 GB memory.…
I might never rediscover those shots