Dick Hoogendijk wrote:
Op
27-2-2010 13:15, Mertol Ozyoney schreef:
This depends on what you are looking for.
Generaly zfs will be more secure due to checksum feature. Having seen a
lot of ntfs / fat drives going south die to bad sectors i'd not clasify
them very secure. However ntfs and fat can be used nearly on every os.
And also you shouldnt forget the extra capabilities of zfs like
snaphots ...
I'll go with ZFS. Like someone said with 'copies=2' for extra safety.
That should do it I think.
Compression will slow my system down too much, so I'll skip that one.
Dick - while you're working out your options, perhaps reconsider using
compression. I haven't observed the default compression algorithm
slowing things down: the CPU cost is modest and possibly that's
compensated by fewer I/O operations.
regards, Jeff
--
Jeff Savit |
Principal Sales Consultant
Phone: 732.537.3451
Email: jeff.sa...@sun.com | Blog:
http://blogs.sun.com/jsavit
Oracle
North America Commercial Hardware
Infrastructure
Software Pillar
2355 E Camelback Rd | Phoenix, AZ 85016
|
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
