Splitting this thread and changing the subject to reflect that... On 11/14/07, can you guess? <billtodd at metrocast.net> wrote:> Another prominent debate in this thread revolves around the question of > just how significant ZFS''s unusual strengths are for *consumer* use. > WAFL clearly plays no part in that debate, because it''s available only > on closed, server systems.I am both a large systems administrator and a ''home user'' (I prefer that term to ''consumer''). I am also very slow to adopt new technologies in either environment. We have started using ZFS at work due to performance improvements (for our workload) over UFS (or any other FS we tested). At home the biggest reason I went with ZFS for my data is ease of management. I split my data up based on what it is ... media (photos, movies, etc.), vendor stuff (software, datasheets, etc.), home directories, and other misc. data. This gives me a good way to control backups based on the data type. I know, this is all more sophisticated than the typical home user. The biggest win for me is that I don''t have to partition my storage in advance. I build one zpool and multiple datasets. I don''t set quotas or reservations (although I could). So I suppose my argument for ZFS in home use is not data integrity, but much simpler management, both short and long term. -- Paul Kraus Albacon 2008 Facilities
On 11/15/07, Paul Kraus <pk1048 at gmail.com> wrote:> > Splitting this thread and changing the subject to reflect that... > > On 11/14/07, can you guess? <billtodd at metrocast.net> wrote: > > > Another prominent debate in this thread revolves around the question of > > just how significant ZFS''s unusual strengths are for *consumer* use. > > WAFL clearly plays no part in that debate, because it''s available only > > on closed, server systems. > > I am both a large systems administrator and a ''home user'' (I > prefer that term to ''consumer''). I am also very slow to adopt new > technologies in either environment. We have started using ZFS at work > due to performance improvements (for our workload) over UFS (or any > other FS we tested). At home the biggest reason I went with ZFS for my > data is ease of management. I split my data up based on what it is ... > media (photos, movies, etc.), vendor stuff (software, datasheets, > etc.), home directories, and other misc. data. This gives me a good > way to control backups based on the data type. I know, this is all > more sophisticated than the typical home user. The biggest win for me > is that I don''t have to partition my storage in advance. I build one > zpool and multiple datasets. I don''t set quotas or reservations > (although I could). > > So I suppose my argument for ZFS in home use is not data > integrity, but much simpler management, both short and long term. >I am in the same situation as you and fully agree, except for "data integrity". At work, a sofistigated backup system keeps many copies of my files, while at home it is much more rudimentary and "data integrity" becomes also very important, certainly more than speed. Paul Paul Kraus> Albacon 2008 Facilities > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >**************************************************** Paul Bartholdi Chemin de la Barillette 11 CH-1260 NYON Suisse tel +41 22 361 0222 **************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20071115/527de0f4/attachment.html>
... At home the biggest reason I> went with ZFS for my > data is ease of management. I split my data up based > on what it is ... > media (photos, movies, etc.), vendor stuff (software, > datasheets, > etc.), home directories, and other misc. data. This > gives me a good > way to control backups based on the data type.It''s not immediately clear why simply segregating the different data types into different directory sub-trees wouldn''t allow you to do pretty much the same thing. - bill This message posted from opensolaris.org
Sent from the correct address... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paul Kraus <paul at kraus-haus.org> Date: Nov 15, 2007 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS for consumers WAS:Yager on ZFS To: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org On 11/15/07, can you guess? <billtodd at metrocast.net> wrote:> ... > > At home the biggest reason I > > went with ZFS for my > > data is ease of management. I split my data up based > > on what it is ... > > media (photos, movies, etc.), vendor stuff (software, > > datasheets, > > etc.), home directories, and other misc. data. This > > gives me a good > > way to control backups based on the data type. > > It''s not immediately clear why simply segregating the different data > types into different directory sub-trees wouldn''t allow you to do pretty > much the same thing.An old habit ... I think about backups along the lines of ufsdumps of entire filesystems, I know, an outdated model. I also like being able to see how much space I am using for each with a simple df rather than a du (that takes a while to run). I can also tune compression on a data type basis (no real point in trying to compress media files that are already compressed MPEG and JPEGs). -- Paul Kraus Albacon 2008 Facilities -- Paul Kraus Albacon 2008 Facilities
Paul Kraus wrote:> > I also like being able to see how much space I am using for > each with a simple df rather than a du (that takes a while to run). I > can also tune compression on a data type basis (no real point in > trying to compress media files that are already compressed MPEG and > JPEGs). > >That''s a very good point. I do the same and as a side effect, my data has never been better organised. For a home user, data integrity is probably as, if not more, important than for a corporate user. How many home users do regular backups? Ian.
Mario Goebbels
2007-Nov-19 11:31 UTC
[zfs-discuss] Fwd: ZFS for consumers WAS:Yager on ZFS
> For a home user, data integrity is probably as, if not more, important > than for a corporate user. How many home users do regular backups?I''m a heavy computer user and probably passed the 500GB mark way before most other home users, did various stunts like running a RAID0 on IBM Deathstars, and I never back up. And I''m only running a ZFS mirror since a month or two, as insurance against disk failure (suddenly felt I needed to do this). What ZFS can give home users is safety for certain parts of their data, via checksums and ditto blocks. Doesn''t prevent disk failure, but sure helps keeping important personal documents uncorrupted. -mg
On 11/19/07, Ian Collins <ian at ianshome.com> wrote:> For a home user, data integrity is probably as, if not more, important > than for a corporate user. How many home users do regular backups?Let me correct a point I made badly the first time around, I value the data integrity provided by mirroring (I have always used mirrored drives for data and OS on my home servers), I don''t know how much the end-to-end checksumming buys me, but it is not a compelling feature. In other words, I didn''t choose ZFS because of the end-to-end checksumming, I chose it for the ease of management and flexibility in configuration. The checksummed data is just a bonus that came along for the ride :-) Remember, this thread was essentially "Why would a home user choose ZFS over other options"... I tried using software mirrors under Linux ... maybe I was spoiled by Disk Suite / Solaris Volume Manager, but I found the Linux software mirrors clunky and unreliable (when installing the OS, the metadevices came up in one order, after booting off of the hard disk they came up in another order, leaving my mirrored root unmountable). I''m not a big fan of hardware "RAID" as I have seen terrible performance out of HW RAID cards and from the OS layer you need additional hardware vendor drivers to really manage and monitor the drives (if you even can from the OS layer, I hate rebooting, even home servers). Just one geeks opinion. -- Paul Kraus Albacon 2008 Facilities