Some examples, of how I've divied up the pool - 

/Users gets mounted as /Users. This makes it easy for OSX as there's a 
filesystem there when it creates a user, and I don't have to retroactively 
move users onto ZFS. I keep an admin account not on ZFS in case too. This 
is regularly snap-shotted with a script running nightly keeping a 
configurable history period. Currently 31 days. Runs through launchd. This 
is also compressed as it's mostly text files, documents, etc

/Media - Stores iPhoto/iTunes/Movies, etc. Not compressed as everything 
here is already compressed in one way or another. Also, easier to share 
between users when mounted up in a shared space, not under a single user.

/Backups - separate filesystem to allow easier cloning of others into here 
from multiple sources. eg. system disk gets a nightly sync into a backup 
img in this space.

/Apps lives on my system SSD, but /Apps/Games comes from another ZFS 
filesystem as games these days are huge. With a 100Gb SSD, and games 
weighing in at ~10G, I don't have the space to house them. ZFS takes them 
easily. Again, mounting into /Apps/Games means it's a standard location for 
the OS, and everybody on the system can use them.


On Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:52:20 PM UTC-4, roemer wrote:
> When one creates a new zpool, this automatically creates a root filesystem 
> too - and even mounts this.
> What is now the advantage (or disadvantage) of creating further 
> sub-filesystems inside the pool using zfs?
> And what is the difference to simply create sub-directories under the 
> zpool root?
> Two advantages, that I can see, are separate compression and quota 
> settings.
> But what about general performance? Is there a performance penalty for 
> having multiple zfs filesystems inside one pool, perhaps even with 
> different settings?


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 
For more options, visit

Reply via email to