deciding UFS vs ZFS

[RW]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 20:40:09 -0400
Daniel Staal wrote:

> --As of July 24, 2014 12:29:12 AM +0100, RW is alleged to have said:
> 
> > Which is why I've found it odd that people have bothered to comment
> > on my original statement that I'm not going to do that because it
> > would be a bad idea.
> >
> >
> > My original question started:
> >
> >  " On a desktop, without raid, I would expect ZFS to make things a
> > lot worse in the case of a disk failure because it would spread the
> >    damage around all the directories.
> >
> >    For that reason I'm putting my desktop user data on
> > ufs/gjournal, but I was wondering about putting the OS on
> > ZFS. ...   "
> 
> --As for the rest, it is mine.
> 
> Which people (including me) immediately assumed meant 'desktop with
> one disk' 

In it's original context it was in reply to:

   "But moving to a second disk only makes ZFS not just attractive but
    basically a must." 

> (because there's no good reason to *not* use RAID or
> mirroring with ZFS if you have more than one disk),

There's no good reason if you have a small amount of data or don't care
about the cost. I have 7 TB so with either raid or mirroring I'd
looking at 5X3TB of extra drives.