On 26/08/2013 08:10, Pandu Poluan wrote: >> The ZFS approach is better - here's the storage, now do with it what I >> want but don't employ arbitrary fixed limits and structures to do it. >> > > +1 on ZFS. It's honestly a truly *modern* filesystem. > > Been using it as the storage back-end of my company's email server. > > The zpool and zfs command may need some time to be familiar with, but > the self-mounting self-sharing ability of zfs (i.e., no need to muck > with fstab and exports files) is really sweet. > > I really leveraged its ability to do what I call "delta snapshot > shipping" (i.e., send only the differences between two snapshots to > another place). It's almost like an asynchronous DRBD, but with the > added peace of mind that if the files become corrupted (due to buggy > app, almost no way for ZFS to let corrupt data exist), I can easily > 'roll back' to the time where the files are still uncorrupted. >
I run it on my NASes, and the thing that really sold me was what it lets me as the admin do: I get all the benefits of directories with none of the downsides. I get all the benefits of mount points with none of the downsides. I get all the benefits of discrete filesystems with none of the downsides. Like you say, a truly modern fs built for modern needs. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
