On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Polytropon <free...@edvax.de> wrote: > I do _not_ want to try to claim a "ZFS inferiority due to > missing backups", but there may be occassions where (except > performance), low-level file system aspects of UFS might be > superior to using ZFS.
If you have an operational need for offsite backups, that doesn't change no matter how much redundancy you have in a single location. Backups are still necessary. But when RAIDed, ZFS has features that make it superior to hardware RAID - copy-on-write, block deduplication, etc. Like UFS2, it supports snapshots - but a lot more of them. Another performance criterion that is important to me is mirror (or raidz) recovery - how long does mirror catch-up take when you replace a disk, and how badly does it degrade performance for other data operations? Software raid, esp. gmirror, tends to do poorly here. My experience is that ZFS raid share recovery had less of an impact. YMMV. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
