On a -single- drive, what is the best filesystem to use: zfs, ntfs or good old fat32 I''ve a 500G sata drive lying around which I can (samba) share from a server (but then ntfs can not be used) or just format is with either ntfs or fat32 and attach it with usb2 when needed. I''m in doubt.. I''ve read that zfs on a single drive is not safe enough, or that at least fat32/ntfs are safer. What is true? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b131 + All that''s really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol)
Hi, 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 ... Best regards Mertol Sent from a mobile device Mertol Ozyoney On 27.?ub.2010, at 13:48, Dick Hoogendijk <dick at nagual.nl> wrote:> On a -single- drive, what is the best filesystem to use: zfs, ntfs > or good old fat32 > I''ve a 500G sata drive lying around which I can (samba) share from a > server (but then ntfs can not be used) or just format is with either > ntfs or fat32 and attach it with usb2 when needed. I''m in doubt.. > I''ve read that zfs on a single drive is not safe enough, or that at > least fat32/ntfs are safer. What is true? > > -- > Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D > + http://nagual.nl/ | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b131 > + All that''s really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis > Carrol) > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
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 Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b131 + All that''s really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol)
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 -- Oracle Email Signature Logo Jeff Savit | Principal Sales Consultant Phone: 732.537.3451 Email: jeff.savit at sun.com | Blog: http://blogs.sun.com/jsavit Oracle North America Commercial Hardware Infrastructure Software Pillar 2355 E Camelback Rd | Phoenix, AZ 85016 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100227/4e94ab62/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/gif Size: 658 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100227/4e94ab62/attachment.gif>