From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun  1 15:08:09 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4688E106566B
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Fri,  1 Jun 2012 15:08:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3008FC17
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Fri,  1 Jun 2012 15:08:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q51F84Xk003676;
	Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:08:04 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost)
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id
	q51F84Kr003672; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:08:04 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 17:08:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>
In-Reply-To: <20120601163520.f130cdcd.freebsd@edvax.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206011703450.3457@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
References: <CACxnZKM__Lt9LMabyUC_HOCg2zsMT=3bpqwVrGj16py1A=qffg@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1206011048010.2497@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
	<CAPj0R5+LcKUGijT17W6RXBz_KQxz5nZYP0vfPY3HNxNEyw0Eaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1206011435430.20357@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
	<CAPj0R5KiUh3HFgbWCy8KDHhCA8L6-t5P85qFovDN+r9OHm90Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120601163520.f130cdcd.freebsd@edvax.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7
	(wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]);
	Fri, 01 Jun 2012 17:08:05 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: Kaya Saman <kayasaman@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Anyone using freebsd ZFS for large storage servers?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:08:09 -0000

> and unbelievable narrow cases, when you don't have or can't
> access a backup (which you should have even when using ZFS),
> and you _need_ to do some forensic analysis on disks, ZFS
> seems to be a worse solution than UFS. On ZFS, you never
> can predict where the data will go. Add several disks to

true. in UFS for example inodes are at known place, and flat structure 
instead of "tree" is used.



even if some sectors are overwritten with garbage then fsck can scan over 
inodes and recover all that can be recovered.


ZFS is somehow in that part similar to Amiga "Fast" File System. when you 
overwrite a directory block (by hardware fault for example), everything below that 
directory will disappear. You may not be even aware of it until you need 
that data

Only separate software (that - contrary to ZFS - do exist) can recover 
things by linearly scanning whole disk. terribly slow but at least 
possible.



EVEN FAT16/FAT32 IS MORE SAFE.