ZFS mounted locally - iPhoto/Aperture, and iTunes both quite happy.
I have DropBox running just fine on my desktop. No reason I couldn't run it
on the laptop and use it to sync documents. Wouldn't be as good for serious
volume, but for just work docs, it handles that just fine, and would keep
things in sync. Alernatively, you could setup some rsync scripts (or
CarbonCopyCloner, etc) to duplicate your directories when your laptop is
back home. Nice thing about DropBox is that it'll work from anywhere
without requiring a VPN back home.
On Monday, March 17, 2014 12:15:21 AM UTC-4, roemer wrote:
> Thanks for sharing this info. Very interesting.
> I am currently developing a very similar idea on how zfs could help me.
> And dedicated Media and Documents (in your case: Users) filesystems /
> datasets would certainly make a lot of sense, especially with the separate
> compression and snapshotting settings.
> How do iTunes and especially iPhoto like it that their working set is
> stored on ZFS?
> Is the zfs pool mounted locally on the same machine, or does it come from
> a file server?
> Another interesting question is how laptops fit into the picture.
> Once you have a file server and at least one laptop, you can't guarantee
> that it is always able to connect to the file server, nor that there is
> only one modifiable copy of shared data (such as work documents - or your
> music ;)...
> On Monday, 17 March 2014 13:20:56 UTC+11, Alex Wasserman wrote:
>> 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
>>> 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
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.