> Having your systems 1 or 2 versions behind the mainline is good practice in every mission-critical piece of software.
I do that, and I've even personally experienced a few rare ZFS bugs that seem due to interactions between ZFS and Western Digital firmwares.
Still, I was caught unprepared: I have several backups not stored on ZFS, but all of them were made FROM a ZFS source, meaning they are now all suspicious since silent corruption has been possible since version 2.1.4, and maybe even longer than that.
ZFS is practical to use, but for now I think I'll keep a history of file checksums, like how it was done before bitrot protection.
Still, that could happen with any other FS. Silent corruption is actually quite more common than winning the lottery, so in that regard ZFS is actually a good step on reducing those odds, even if its not zero (like advertised in the package).
I'm also assuming those backups aren't actually ZFS streams (from zfs send|receive) which is a special case of "bugs biting you twice" :P
I do that, and I've even personally experienced a few rare ZFS bugs that seem due to interactions between ZFS and Western Digital firmwares.
Still, I was caught unprepared: I have several backups not stored on ZFS, but all of them were made FROM a ZFS source, meaning they are now all suspicious since silent corruption has been possible since version 2.1.4, and maybe even longer than that.
ZFS is practical to use, but for now I think I'll keep a history of file checksums, like how it was done before bitrot protection.