Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 12:33:05 -0700 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: George Kontostanos <gkontos.mail@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS vs OSX Time Machine Message-ID: <8D2285F1-3706-4FEB-A4B4-10089AC7A622@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimdhwtj2q=jEC_dTU7Brv7g6mHMUQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <537A8F4F-A302-40F9-92DF-403388D99B4B@gsoft.com.au> <2B80846C-E8A9-4FF6-962C-9405469661D6@mac.com> <BANLkTimdhwtj2q=jEC_dTU7Brv7g6mHMUQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 28, 2011, at 12:17 PM, George Kontostanos wrote: > I am using TM over smb on a ZFS Raidz1 pool of my fileserver with no problems whatsoever. > > NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > tank/apple 37.2G 82.8G 37.2G /tank/apple > > Oldest backup 14 December 2009 SMB aka CIFS is a better choice than NFS, because it supports better locking (oplocks or "stealable" locks), but it is not as good as AFP for this particular purpose. Also, ZFS isn't going to be as space efficient at storing TM backups compared with HFS+, because it doesn't support hard links to directories. Regards, -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8D2285F1-3706-4FEB-A4B4-10089AC7A622>