From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 22 21:27:27 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A099ABD for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:27:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-x22d.google.com (mail-wg0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31705288C for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 21:27:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id x12so248489wgg.4 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:27:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=z/zsWxP0DPAtvEJyyIS+SK9xEP/LP8rNXNvHpF2JwyU=; b=k7EcYBBJiBcGi24qr1XzPRBTEt+zQ83aqwnb7uYYUGja4NnoJ4jwosJ6RSouhWeI2X hAflWS5CHPEZ1+tvrpyBmukGbnv5Uz/7vxII9y7qhOUH1IXSq3Nen/67UWtuXgibwo+5 owwCKLboU56EkJUAvholvLNgYpHXXkEHjRWbpGosehZcAkzJL+yTtNdhMb29cJgD5Xke jTXKsr1EeOhoIRQscUyNKGILy+pL1Bp2CeN/TuKLajV12hq7u/3JGIQI5+ohDd93XkxL uVl1vEd7ljCXhx3jTvAQiVzZOmlbDjDvBFb+zc2hDT4LDO5iiqyYVcort++9fxCG1Y7P n4mw== X-Received: by 10.180.24.66 with SMTP id s2mr18272962wif.33.1406064445302; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com ([94.195.197.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id di7sm675233wjb.34.2014.07.22.14.27.24 for (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:27:22 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS Message-ID: <20140722222722.70f13ec9@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <8699AF5D2BE8E9EBCFFEEE17@[192.168.1.50]> 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> <8699AF5D2BE8E9EBCFFEEE17@[192.168.1.50]> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.22; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 21:27:27 -0000 On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:16:06 -0400 Daniel Staal wrote: > --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. Most desktops that have a lot of storage have it filled with multimedia, which is highly resistant to data rot, the OS can be reinstalled, this is not a significant issue to most people. > 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. I'm specifically talking about the case where a desktop PC is converted from JBOD to ZFS without any redundancy. > 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. When you lose some files from a directory it often renders others worthless, for example losing a third of the episodes of a TV series can be much the same as losing all of them. When a disk fails with UFS, the directories on the other disks are completely unaffected.