Splitting this thread and changing the subject to reflect that...
On 11/14/07, can you guess? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another prominent debate in this thread revolves around the question of
> just how significant ZFS's unusual strengths are for *consumer* use.
> WAFL clearly plays no part in that debate, because it's available only
> on closed, server systems.
I am both a large systems administrator and a 'home user' (I
prefer that term to 'consumer'). I am also very slow to adopt new
technologies in either environment. We have started using ZFS at work
due to performance improvements (for our workload) over UFS (or any
other FS we tested). At home the biggest reason I went with ZFS for my
data is ease of management. I split my data up based on what it is ...
media (photos, movies, etc.), vendor stuff (software, datasheets,
etc.), home directories, and other misc. data. This gives me a good
way to control backups based on the data type. I know, this is all
more sophisticated than the typical home user. The biggest win for me
is that I don't have to partition my storage in advance. I build one
zpool and multiple datasets. I don't set quotas or reservations
(although I could).
So I suppose my argument for ZFS in home use is not data
integrity, but much simpler management, both short and long term.
--
Paul Kraus
Albacon 2008 Facilities
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
