This entire article can be summarised as 'guy who has never used ZFS and has no idea whatsoever about how it works writes a critique that exposes their ignorance publicly'.

Here's a quote:

- “ZFS has CRCs for data integrity

A certain category of people are terrified of the techno-bogeyman named “bit rot.” These people think that a movie file not playing back or a picture getting mangled is caused by data on hard drives “rotting” over time without any warning. The magical remedy they use to combat this today is the holy CRC, or “cyclic redundancy check.” It’s a certain family of hash algorithms that produce a magic number that will always be the same if the data used to generate it is the same every time.

This is, by far, the number one pain in the ass statement out of the classic ZFS fanboy’s mouth..."

Meanwhile in reality...

ZFS does not use CRCs for checksums.

It's very hard to take someone's view seriously when they are making mistakes at this level.

ZFS allows a range of checksum algorithms, including SHA256, and you can even specify per dataset the strength of checksum you want.

- "Hard drives already do it better"

No, they don't, or Oracle/Sun/OpenZFS developers wouldn't have spent time and money making it.

It makes a bit of a difference when your disk says 'whoops, sorry, CRC fail, that block's gone?' and it was holding your whole filesystem together. Or when a power surge or bad component fries the whole drive at once.

ZFS allows optional duplication of metadata or data blocks automatically; as well as multiple levels of RAID-equivalency for automatic, transparent rebuilding of data/metadata in the presence of multiple unreliable or failed devices. Hard drives... don't do that.

Even ZFS running on a single disk can automatically keep 2 (or more) copies on disk of whatever datasets you think are especially important - just check the flag. Regular hard drives don't offer that.

- What about the very unlikely scenario where several bits flip in a specific way that thwarts the hard drive’s ECC? This is the only scenario where the hard drive would lose data silently, therefore it’s also the only bit rot scenario that ZFS CRCs can help with.

Well, that and entire disk failures.

And power failures leading to inconsistency on the drive.

And cable faults leading to the wrong data being sent to the drive to be written.

And drive firmware bugs.

And faulty cache memory or faulty controllers on the hard drive.

And poorly connected drives with intermittent glitches / timeouts in communication.

You get the idea.

I could also point out that ZFS allows you to backup quickly and precisely (via snapshots, and incremental snapshot diffs).

It allows you to detect errors as they appear (via scrubs) rather than find out years later when your photos are filled with vomit coloured blocks.

It also tells you every time it opens a file if it has found an error, and corrected it in the background for you - thank god! This 'passive warning' feature alone lets you quickly realise you have a bad disk or cable so you can do something about it. Consider the same situation with a hard drive over a period of years...

ZFS is a copy-on-write filesystem, so if something naughty happens like a power-cut during an update to a file, your original data is still there. Unlike a hard disk (or RAID).

It's trivial to set up automatic snapshots, which as well as allowing known-point-in-time recovery, are an exceptionally effective way to prevent viruses, user errors etc from wrecking your data. You can always wind back the clock.

Where is the author losing his data (that he knows of, and in his very limited experience...): All of my data loss tends to come from poorly typed ‘rm’ commands. ... so, exactly the kind of situation that ZFS snapshots allow instant, certain, trouble-free recovery from in the space of seconds? [either by rolling back the filesystem, or by conveniently 'dipping into' past snapshots as though they were present-day directories as needed]

Anyway I do hope Mr/Ms nctritech learns to read the beginner's guide for technologies they critique in future, maybe even try them once or twice, before they write their critique.

What next?

"Why even use C? Everything you can do in C, you can do in PHP anyway!"