http://geekbleep.disqus.com/enFri, 22 Dec 2006 12:40:32 -0000http://geekbleep.com/wordpress/?p=32#comment-2772192<p>Here's a great blog post describing why ZFS is great for Mac users: <a href="http://mtrr.org/blog/?p=83" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://mtrr.org/blog/?p=83">http://mtrr.org/blog/?p=83</a></p>qmchenryFri, 22 Dec 2006 12:40:32 -0000http://geekbleep.com/wordpress/?p=32#comment-2772191<p>Cool. Thanks.</p>DavakWed, 20 Dec 2006 10:49:23 -0000http://geekbleep.com/wordpress/?p=32#comment-2772190<p>ZFS is the simplest filesystem to administer that I can imagine, actually. UNIX-like systems use UFS or HFS+ (in OS X) which are quite cumbersome to work with. The administrative commands are cryptic to the uninitiated, just like FDISK in DOS. The commands in ZFS are elegant, an adjective rarely heard in reference to admin stuff. And when wrapped in an OS X installation and administration interface, I would have no reservation in telling my mom to go ahead and click the ZFS box during an install.</p><p>I imagine in some future release it will replace HSF+ as the default filesystem. Even without the bells and whistles (raidz, cloning, growing filesystems, etc.), ZFS is paranoid about protecting data under its control. For example, when power is rudely removed from a system, be it Solaris or Windows, sometimes you'll get a CHKDSK or fsck warning about possible drive corruption when it boots. Given the way ZFS writes data, this won't happen. So cool!</p>qmchenryMon, 18 Dec 2006 19:51:10 -0000http://geekbleep.com/wordpress/?p=32#comment-2772189<p>Q:</p><p>It sounds like ZFS is pretty complex. Is this an upgrade that the average OSX user should put into effect?</p>DavakMon, 18 Dec 2006 19:29:57 -0000