Apr 30, 2009 · In some ways, you can't compare them: XFS is a filesystem; ZFS is a filesystem and so much more: it replaces the filesystem, the volume manager (like LVM), and RAID besides. However, JFS is no longer maintained if memory serves: however, XFS is active and maintained and robust. Either way - ZFS or XFS - you can't go wrong in my opinion. –

Sep 2, 2022 · ZFS also requires an insane amount of resources in comparison with XFS. ZFS does offer some advantages (similar to all pure-RAID systems), but if I wanted pure RAID, I would have built a RAID server as opposed to an UnRAID server. Making matters worse, ZFS also is slower than other RAID implementations (due to it's rich feature set.)

Cons: ZFS-formatted disks in Unraid's array do not offer inherent self-healing bitrot protection. The throughput is the same as a standard Unraid array and may not operate as efficiently as a pure ZFS pool under the strain of multiple concurrent users. ZFS's heightened resource demands could overburden less potent servers.

Sep 28, 2023 · I think most Unraid users are switching from btrfs to zfs for their cache pools due to the increased stability/performance and the fact that you can utilize parity raid whereas btrfs only officially supported raid 0 and raid 1. I imagine the majority of users will keep their array as xfs due to the ease of adding additional drives vs zfs.

Aug 8, 2023 · Totally agree. I think I'm actually the most vocal anti-zfs person on this forum. Again, zfs IS superior as a file system. Unraid is just good old xfs (or btrfs, but that also has/had it's issues, and now you can do zfs, even on individual array disks, something that might be the best solution going forward) with some parity magic on top of it.

Jul 25, 2022 · What would be the benefit of ZFS over UFS on the FreeBSD Desktop system? I recently chose to go with UFS over ZFS for my FreeBSD installation. I don't see a difference, other than the fact that mounting UFS drives are much more easier than ZFS. So with my limited knowledge, UFS seems the way to go.

Jul 24, 2021 · You 4 XFS plan seems the best to me and expanding through pools might be the best option in the future, we only support expansion on distributed setups (4 disks or more) Also the XFS setup will be the most performant one, since MinIO writes to all disks (up to 16) to store objects the througput of a write operation is high and to read we only ...

ZFS ZFS has multi device support for doing raid, ext4 does not. ZFS has snapshots capability built into the filesystem. Which can help in replication, which would be faster compare to rsync. ZFS can do atomic writes if you have a specific usecase in mind since it's a cow filesystem. More suitable for NAS usecase. EXT4

Jan 28, 2020 · ZFS for anything else. For your use case I would use ZFS, especially considering that Ubuntu 18.04 already ships it. As you can easily attach another mirror leg to an already existing device, ZFS fits the bill very well. For example, let name your disk nvme0p1: zpool create tank /dev/nvme0p1 create your single vdev pool called “tank”;

ZFS is preferred > 4GB ram for any system, and UFS otherwise on FreeBSD or XFS on Linux. AES-NI works wonders for most compression workloads, but ZFS can specify various types of algos and compression strength when deployed to hosts without AES-NI.