From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 24 00:40:17 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 78E3DB84 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:40:17 +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 483052CEE for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:40:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (Mac-Pro.magehandbook.com [192.168.1.50]) by mail.magehandbook.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3hJZSn6wmRzWd for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:40:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:40:09 -0400 From: Daniel Staal To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS Message-ID: <98DFE7A36ED2EBA26E6C710C@[192.168.1.50]> In-Reply-To: <20140724002912.5eda1757@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> <8699AF5D2BE8E9EBCFFEEE17@[192.168.1.50]> <20140722222722.70f13ec9@gumby.homeunix.com> <20140724002912.5eda1757@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: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 00:40:17 -0000 --As of July 24, 2014 12:29:12 AM +0100, RW is alleged to have said: > 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. ... " --As for the rest, it is mine. Which people (including me) immediately assumed meant 'desktop with one disk' (because there's no good reason to *not* use RAID or mirroring with ZFS if you have more than one disk), and couldn't understand what you were trying to say. ;) Especially since usually `/home` is usually it's own partition, or at the very least `/home/$user` is, so your user data would all get lost with one partition/disk being lost anyway. So how keeping that one partition as UFS makes it so that you'd only lose part of it is extremely unclear. If you have multiple disks, ZFS with raid/mirroring is nearly *always* a better choice than UFS, in my opinion. Exceptions would be things like dedicated database servers and such, where you have applications basically constructing their own file systems on top of the OS's file system. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------