Unlike CoreStorage however, ZFS offers concatenation with parity, a genius concept in which 3 or more drives can sacrifice X drives' worth of storage to prevent data loss even if up to X of the drives fail altogether. Both also allow for bit-level encryption, though CoreStorage offers significantly better performance via hardware acceleration on compatible Macs. ![]() ![]() Z-Pools, and to a lesser extent CoreStorage, allow for custom combinations of mirrored disks and concatenated disks. They both also offer concatenation, such that multiple disks distribute data so as to combine their capacity (and performance). CoreStorage and HFS+ can be manipulated to some extent via Disk Utility, however a lot of what I describe requires custom specification not offered through the user interface.īoth Z-Pools and CoreStorage offer redundancy, meaning multiple disks duplicating data to maintain its integrity. There's Mac OS X's HFS+ filesystem versus the ZFS filesystem, but equally important is Mac OS X's CoreStorage versus ZFS's Z-Pools.įirst thing you should know To make the most of either system, you should be capable and willing to perform the necessary configuration through the command line. To compare 'ZFS' with the storage options builtin to Mac OS X is to really make two comparisons. I've been using ZFS on my Macs since I discovered it, starting with the rudimentary MacZFS implementation, then graduating to the full experience by booting Debian kFreeBSD in VMware.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |