Reliable Firewire drives

[Dan Shoop]

On Jan 10, 2008, at 10:16 PM, John C. Welch wrote:

> On 01/10/2008 20:51 PM, "Dan Shoop" <shoop at iwiring.net> wrote:
>
>>> Actually, thinking about it more, comparing Time Machine to ZFS is
>>> like
>>> comparing a house to the ground it sits on. As long as the ground is
>>> good
>>> for the house, who cares? Time Machine will work as well with ZFS as
>>> HFSX as
>>> with any FS that supports the things it needs.
>>
>> I guess the point I was trying to make is that ZFS makes Time Machine
>> moot. It just does it's thing and doesn't need to have all the
>> overheard of fsevents and nasty hard links for directories. You just
>> tell the filesystem to handle backing itself up and you're done or  
>> you
>> do it on demand. And it's easily accessible since it's always part of
>> your existing filesystem.
>
> That's not why people like Time Machine. The FS is not the  
> usability. The FS
> doesn't provide a way to only search for mail in Mail.app, or just for
> Numbers files in Numbers. ZFS doesn't make TM moot anymore than  
> having a
> nice engine makes the seats and the GPS moot. All have value. To be
> technical, TM makes the FS meaningless. As long as the FS supports  
> TM's
> needs, it's immaterial. ZFS, HFSX, whatever.

So you like the abstraction and the API.That's good.

> That's how it SHOULD be. This idea that someone who just wants to  
> back their
> stuff up needs to care about the FS is inane, and lazy.

Well I'd hardly call it lazy. The majority of ppl don't backup. Or use  
Time Machine. A filesystem that allows you to be lazy passes the "mom  
test" far better.

> It's making things
> easy on programmers, and harder on the people using the programs,  
> and that's
> NOT how things are supposed to work.

It does no such thing. ZFS provides a method to seamlessly protect  
data in ways that Time Machine can't. Time machine can't fix corrupted  
files. Time Machine can't work with only one volume to protect data.

ZFS permits you to have backups w/o programmers. If you want to fal  
back, you just roll backwards.

>>
>>> What TM offers that *any* fs doesn't is ease of use and a good UI
>>> and Layer
>>> 8 integration so the users can easily back up data. Neither the User
>>> nor the
>>> Application should give a rat's patootie about the FS underneath as
>>> long as
>>> it works, which is as it should be.
>>
>>
>> But ZFS doesn't need a UI to access the backed up files, they're
>> exposed in the filesystem. (Which one could argue is also the case if
>> you examine a Time Machine volume, with the exception there that it's
>> a different filesystem.)
>
> Dan, stop missing the point. TM is abstracted from the filesystem,  
> just like
> other applications are. The value of TM is not in silly  
> propellerhead FS
> arguments over who has the biggest FS 'nads. It's in the fact that  
> if I'm in
> Numbers, and I need to find an old version of the spreadsheet I'm  
> working
> on, I hit the time machine icon, scroll a bit, and bang, I'm good. No
> searching a file system.

Which requires programmer intervention. It requires programmers to  
utilize APIs. It requires a lot of effort by many more people. Nothing  
happens wih TM automagically. Nothing.

With ZFS if you find you're f**cked you can just issue a command or  
two and be back to where you were previously. Sure there's not eye  
candy and dancing bears but then again you don't need them either.

> No running spotlight or other queries against
> backup/creation/modification dates or other file metadata.

I'm not sure why you feel that's necessary with ZFS, though it  
certainly could be with Time Machine.

> You just see the version you want, and ba-doom, it's good.

Um... and ZFS doesn't do that how? Heck, you can even use the (ugh)  
Finder.

> The UI, the usability is what has real value.

Which is exactly what ZFS is designed to avoid. Special UIs.

> The FS underneath it is at
> worst a non-issue, and at *best* a non-issue, because that's what it's
> supposed to be to people using TM: a non-issue.

Yes Time machine works fine for those that use it, those who have  
programs coded to it, and works nicely if everyone is interested in  
expending time and effort with handling Time Machine cruft. But how  
many people are running Time Machine? Certainly no one with one disk,  
like your fabled Powerbook/MacBook users on the road. And that's  
exactly where ZFS scores, as it can protect you even in the situation  
where you have one spindle.

Oh, and I might add that TM is extremely more wasteful in space  
requirements. Need I mention how bad it is with large, ephemeral  
files??? It suck donkey balls for disk images, Parallels/ 
VMware, .mboxes, ... the list goes on.

-dhan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Shoop
Computer Scientist
iWiring / U.S. Technical Services

shoop at iwiring.net
AOL IM .................... iWiring
Nextel .................... 1-714-363-1174
Operations TOC (24/7) ..... 1-866-901-USTS
USTS Offices .............. 1-714-374-6300

For immediate response for urgent matters please speak to the Duty  
Officer
at the USTS Tactical Operations Center (above) who can reach me by  
radio.