From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 22 18:16:13 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA69896F for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:16:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.magehandbook.com (173-8-4-45-WashingtonDC.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.8.4.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB95123E3 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:16:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (Mac-Pro.magehandbook.com [192.168.1.50]) by mail.magehandbook.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3hHp062pGbzKf for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:16:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:16:06 -0400 From: Daniel Staal To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS Message-ID: <8699AF5D2BE8E9EBCFFEEE17@[192.168.1.50]> 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> <20140716143929.74209529@gumby.homeunix.com> <20140718180416.715cdc0b@gumby.homeunix.com> <20140722133305.228a1690@gumby.homeunix.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:16:13 -0000 --As of July 22, 2014 1:33:05 PM +0100, RW is alleged to have said: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:23:42 +0100 > krad wrote: > >> You seem to be getting away from your initial statement, which you >> said zfs would make it worse, and journaled ufs. I really dont see >> this being the case, yes there are scenarios where u will get a >> screwed pool, but thats the case with any file system. > > Would you rather lose a third of your books, or a third of the > chapters from all your books? --As for the rest, it is mine. I'd rather not lose any of it, not even a single period. Which would mean a filesystem that can monitor itself for health and integrity, down to the individual file level, keep backups and changes, and repair itself. Which is ZFS. (Admittedly some of those features aren't likely to be used in a single-disk pool - but they can be.) The only real case of 'lose everything' under ZFS is if the disk goes bad - in which case you'd lose everything under UFS as well, most likely. If less than the whole disk goes bad you'll get checksum errors (which might give you warning the disk is failing), which will tell you what's happening. If you aren't keeping backups you might lose the file - but since the checksum failed you've *already* lost the file. ZFS is able to tell you about it, while UFS won't - and will happily let you wreck other files when you act on the bad data. So, I really don't see what you are thinking might happen, and why it's an advantage for UFS. Daniel T. Staal --------------------------------------------------------------- This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years, whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of local copyright law. ---------------------------------------------------------------