Z-410: How ZFS is slowly making its way to Mac OS X

Re:Z-410: How ZFS is slowly making its way to Mac OS X by dhess on Friday March 18, 2011 @05:38PM (#2342089)

> You could even TimeMachine-without-additional-drives... I mean, why should my snapshot system and my backup system be one? How about letting me use TimeMachine locally, and if I plug up an additional drive, TimeMachine asks me if I want to backup to it as well?

Unless something changes between now and RTM, Lion will provide that feature out of the box:

http://www.9to5mac.com/54117/time-machine-can-be-used-withou...

And that's about the only feature that a typical Mac user would benefit from with ZFS, without some kind of "prosumer" or "enterprise-y" external storage device.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Z-410: How ZFS is slowly making its way to Mac OS X by ssmoot on Saturday March 19, 2011 @03:27PM (#2344453)

I almost always use lzjb compression. It's nearly free and gives good returns for mixed data like the sort you'll find on system drives. Binaries, text, etc.

Also the reliability aspect. I haven't had HFS+ go bad on my own systems, but I've seen it several times on servers. It's on about the same level as ext3fs in that arena, which is pretty bad in my book.

I get the "less is more" argument and I agree generally. ZFS is so far beyond a traditional FS though.

[ Parent | on HN ]