toebert

I don’t use it so I can’t recommend it, but if you’re interested in other options to research there’s a mergerfs+snapraid combo.

I currently pass through my disks to an unraid VM and then mount them through nfs which works (but from the sounds of it probably not a valid option for you, not would I recommend it), but I want to try replacing it with mergerfs at some point.

The thing that has mainly turned me off of zfs is (from what I understand) that you kinda need to plan how you’re going to expand when you set it up. Which really doesn’t work for me with a random collection of disks of varying sizes.

Another note for option 1, since proxmox 8.4 there is virtiofs which would allow you to mount a folder to a VM without having to go through nfs. You may have to mess with selinux in the VM depending on what you do in there, but just fyi it’s a thing.

Does it have reduplication enabled? Afaik that’s the functionality that the high memory footprint is usually quoted.

(Also, was that meant to be 170TB?)

So… you are familiar with the windows 3rd party programs to use, but not the Linux ones?

That would certainly apply the other way around as well, so is that a barrier to entry to windows too then?

I never understood the argument of “if it’s not in the UI you may need to use a command to achieve it and it’s scary”.

On windows, if it’s not in the UI you have to use either a powershell command or update the registry to change it - which are both a very similar experience.

The only difference I actually see in this point is that Linux has a lot more options.

I’ll also say 5 but I have my gripes with it. Mainly with the “review from any other engineer” aspect that usually comes with it… I have met so many engineers whose review seems to just depend on who created the MR, as opposed to what’s in it. When an MR with 500+ lines changed gets reviewed in about 10s after requesting it, it’s kinda obvious that the system is broken.

The people I’ve worked with who are good at their job and I’d probably be okay with them merging their changes without reviews would always ask for a review, even when it’s not mandatory or enforced. And their MR would already have comments by themselves around bits I might have a question around, and they’d even come with prompts of what they want input on. Whereas the people I wish wouldn’t even be allowed to approve anything would usually ask for an approval instead (even the wording seems telling). Sadly, often these 2 groups will have the same job title and HR will dictate that they should have the same permissions and say in things, which is what usually breaks the system IMO.

And lastly, the amount of people who seem to treat reviews as currency/favours and just rubber stamp each others MRs without looking…sigh.