From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 23 23:29:18 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 6E4E0369 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:29:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-we0-x235.google.com (mail-we0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::235]) (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 004FD26DC for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f181.google.com with SMTP id k48so1951429wev.40 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:29:16 -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=ukh7RJuZtPBEtduFX5GWg5Er7hcANpTBCyKcVX4LBDs=; b=02tSjPy62XZ4BrljhGk8bk+tuU6t/MOzvRCzA1PGpVTCSIXT8u8Pa5ayCYrr3BkkcD qGcAjaDhCr2aanL6a658dHtzeoqYpUvowtk7ehz64UMaJKKV75OmOvJovWvfK4l0ADpW cbVfeEadKoraIa0jlsTzQYAdIfdDMewUs1xGwycun7keBzzNJV1piaH9haSVuwl65xZb 6TVpaqTXOEA65pKKjnEbfGb7hwKVztxHjzomTc2JoVGbJC56tght2QJftYODiT/EzPna W0FHPQ0SQ2llUCVuWGuiUlnCWBw1PCPwnSXtM3WeURUiy9arjVZRDzLMFYgpVghtbBMU T37g== X-Received: by 10.180.81.103 with SMTP id z7mr28937619wix.23.1406158156365; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com ([94.195.197.42]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id go4sm10340144wjc.39.2014.07.23.16.29.14 for (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:29:12 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS Message-ID: <20140724002912.5eda1757@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: 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]> <20140722222722.70f13ec9@gumby.homeunix.com> 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: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:29:18 -0000 On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 18:04:12 -0400 Daniel Staal wrote: > --As of July 22, 2014 10:27:22 PM +0100, RW is alleged to have said: > > I'm specifically talking about the case where a desktop PC is > > converted from JBOD to ZFS without any redundancy. > > Ok, so not a single disk case, and a case *anyone* would recommend > you against. In fact, it's a case that every ZFS guide I've seen > leaves out because it's an idiotic idea to use ZFS that way. Which is why I've found it odd that people have bothered to comment on my original statement that I'm not going to do that because it would be a bad idea. My original question started: " On a desktop, without raid, I would expect ZFS to make things a lot worse in the case of a disk failure because it would spread the damage around all the directories. For that reason I'm putting my desktop user data on ufs/gjournal, but I was wondering about putting the OS on ZFS. ... "