True, but it's also a journaling filesystem (effectively, even if that's not quite the curvy technical term for it) so is far less prone to random corruption on hard (unexpected) shutdowns / reboots. Best of both worlds is to use ZFS boot off mirrored disks, but that also increases cost and only protects against two common failure modes. At least here, I lose power frequently. (For periods longer than I'm prepared to spend on UPS to protect, thank you.) I've had corrupt filesystem once, never want that again. I've had disk failure zero times, at least I don't waste time debugging it when that happens. So single-device ZFS should be an improvement over the current state of affairs no matter what. -Adam
On August 5, 2017 11:16:20 AM CDT, Rainer Duffner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Am 05.08.2017 um 15:07 schrieb Jim Pingle <[email protected]>: >> >> ZFS is self-healing and though we have not been able to reproduce the >> corruption issues seen by some with UFS, all evidence points to ZFS >not >> being susceptible to those problems. > > >It’s really only „self-healing“ if you have two or more disks. > >That’s (one reason) why they recommend to not use hardware-RAID. > > >_______________________________________________ >pfSense mailing list >https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list >Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ pfSense mailing list https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
