Wouldn't ZFS actually make things better as opposed to worse? Say I have a Macbook with failing memory, and there's a magnetic storm. If I was using HFS+, with each write I'd be seeding the drive with bit errors, without ever noticing until the system crashes. If the bit error happens infrequently, the data corruption would likely be propagated to any backup I maintain.
With ZFS, the bit error would likely result in me being alerted of a corruption, and even if error correction "fixed" the data on the drive, this would result in an inconsistent state, and soon ZFS would take the drive offline due to fault threshold, and the system would crash. Then I would know that the data is damaged, and I could restore from backup after replacing the memory. (And of course, ZFS protects me from the much more common hard drive bit errors.) I don't see how this isn't awesome. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zfs-macos" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.