[sergiolp]

Sorry if I'm too harsh, but saying that ZoL is "rock solid" and "production ready" sounds like a joke to my ears.

ZFS is an extremely complex filesystem, and it took Sun _years_ of internal testing first, and hundreds of angry customers later (sadly, at some point, the only way to improve a product is through real world testing), to reach a milestone where it was really production ready.

I know that on these days of dockers and unicorns, "production ready" has very different meaning than years ago, but still...

[myztic]

Of course you can't compare the trouble Sun originally had in creating ZFS with the difficulty of porting it to Linux when it has been used for years and you can built on stable code and learn by the other implementations. This comparison is quite unfair and lacking in substance. It's not like the ZoL guys had to start from scratch and reverse engineer

It depends of course, I would always choose FreeBSD over Linux when it comes to ZFS, but then again I would always choose a BSD-OS regardless of whether I want to use ZFS or not.

Take it certainly with a grain of salt, but the developers themselves announced ZoL to be production ready in 2013/03[1], Richard Yao (also a developer of ZoL) argued in a blog post in 2014/09[2] that ZoL was stable and production ready and elaborated on this. Some interesting comments also are here[3].

And all this also was quite a while ago, ZoL has been used by users for years now, it's come a long way, I have used it to some extent a while ago and had no bad experiences.

In the end everyone has to decide for themselves what "production ready" really means, and how high the threshold is to deserve that label. But I think that you can reasonably make the argument, that it is...

[1] https://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlinux.org/forum/m/?fromgrou...

[2] https://clusterhq.com/2014/09/11/state-zfs-on-linux/

[3] http://linux.slashdot.org/story/14/09/11/1421201/the-state-o...