and unbelievable narrow cases, when you don't have or can't access a backup (which you should have even when using ZFS), and you _need_ to do some forensic analysis on disks, ZFS seems to be a worse solution than UFS. On ZFS, you never can predict where the data will go. Add several disks to
true. in UFS for example inodes are at known place, and flat structure instead of "tree" is used.
even if some sectors are overwritten with garbage then fsck can scan over inodes and recover all that can be recovered.
ZFS is somehow in that part similar to Amiga "Fast" File System. when you overwrite a directory block (by hardware fault for example), everything below that directory will disappear. You may not be even aware of it until you need that data
Only separate software (that - contrary to ZFS - do exist) can recover things by linearly scanning whole disk. terribly slow but at least possible.
EVEN FAT16/FAT32 IS MORE SAFE. _______________________________________________ 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"
