deciding UFS vs ZFS

[Daniel Staal]

--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.
---------------------------------------------------------------