deciding UFS vs ZFS

[Daniel Staal]

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