Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:53:28 -0400 From: Paul Kraus <paul@kraus-haus.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS Message-ID: <483CBF75-1553-4A0D-916B-1B3F1B9B7CBA@kraus-haus.org> In-Reply-To: <20140722133305.228a1690@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <20140713190308.GA9678@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org> <20140714071443.42f615c5@X220.alogt.com> <53C326EE.1030405@my.hennepintech.edu> <20140714111221.5d4aaea9@X220.alogt.com> <20140715143821.23638db5@gumby.homeunix.com> <CALfReyf8Rg7rCcob4jSk9XbPLY0MpP52jno9vZ0GUFQGS0Vy-A@mail.gmail.com> <20140716143929.74209529@gumby.homeunix.com> <CALfReycWppVY5BYHeqvunvnUDtwPAke5vug0Kik2_JTnvvfArQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140718180416.715cdc0b@gumby.homeunix.com> <CALfReycMdd-jNvRaiyXO4A=C3eFwuugL74HNoKyb2q4um1L5pg@mail.gmail.com> <20140722133305.228a1690@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 22, 2014, at 8:33, RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> wrote: > Would you rather lose a third of your books, or a third of the > chapters from all your books?=20 If you are storing data you do not want to lose on non-redundant = storage, well, then you deserve what you get. Whether it is UFS or ZFS. What I really do not understand is this mindset that using ZFS (on a = single drive) is an all-or-nothing proposition in terms of failures. = What kind of failure with a partitioned drive and UFS will yield *less* = data loss than ZFS? Bad disk blocks? ZFS sees the bad checksum and lets = you know. What does FreeBSD UFS do with bad blocks (or silently corrupt = blocks)? On the other hand, having to guess up front how much space will be = needed in each of the various (manually managed) partitions is a = crap-shoot. More often than not leaving lots of unused space that = *other* partitions could really make good use of. That is, in my = opinion, the biggest management advantage of ZFS on a single drive=85 = pooled storage with the ability to control it (quotas and reservations). But I have only ever run ZFS on a single drive for testing purposes. All = of my real data is on redundant storage. I rsync the data directories on = my laptop with my server at home on a regular basis (and even use Time = Machine, yes the laptop is a Mac) at the office, so I have THREE copies = of the important data (one of which is redundant). The cost of storage = and low end servers is much, much less than the cost of lost data. -- Paul Kraus paul@kraus-haus.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?483CBF75-1553-4A0D-916B-1B3F1B9B7CBA>