It's very difficult for me or anyone to gather statistics about ZFS crash recovery. I do not think that script is the state-of-art of ZFS recovery, but it's the most common suggestion. The GitHub issue about a replacement is still open, there seems to be no functional alternative.
Maybe such an absolute statement the author made is somewhat incorrect, but it's not entirely incorrect. Empirically so, according to the issue tracker. If people didn't request these things every year, I'd agree that there are no recovery issues.
I do think that other filesystems tend to have better 1st and 2nd party tools for repair and recovery. It is also true that some file systems are less complex and that might help. But isn't that an argument for providing even stronger 1st party tooling and documentation? We want people to not lose any data, no?
So to clarify the discussion a bit, what is it that you're claiming? Are you claiming ZFS has no recovery issues or that it's okay because some others are equally terrible to recover?
Maybe such an absolute statement the author made is somewhat incorrect, but it's not entirely incorrect. Empirically so, according to the issue tracker. If people didn't request these things every year, I'd agree that there are no recovery issues.
I do think that other filesystems tend to have better 1st and 2nd party tools for repair and recovery. It is also true that some file systems are less complex and that might help. But isn't that an argument for providing even stronger 1st party tooling and documentation? We want people to not lose any data, no?
So to clarify the discussion a bit, what is it that you're claiming? Are you claiming ZFS has no recovery issues or that it's okay because some others are equally terrible to recover?