Re: ZFS vs. UFS

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Laszlo Nagy <gandalf(at)shopzeus(dot)com> wrote:

>
> > I wonder if UFS has better performance or not. Or can you suggest
>> > another fs? Just of the PGDATA directory.
>>
>
> Relying on physically moving a disk isn't a good backup/recovery
> strategy. Disks are the least reliable single component in a modern
> computer. You should figure out the best file system for your application,
> and separately figure out a recovery strategy, one that can survive the
> failure of *any* component in your system, including the disk itself.
>
> This is why I use a RAID array of 10 disks. So there is no single point of
> failure. What else could I do? (Yes, I can make regular backups, but that
> is not the same. I can still loose data...)
>

Only you can answer that because it depends on your application. If you're
operating PayPal, you probably want 24/7 100% reliability. If you're
operating a social networking site for teenagers, losing data is probably
not a catastrophe.

In my experience, most data loss is NOT from equipment failure. It's from
software bugs and operator errors. If your recovery plan doesn't cover
this, you have a problem.

Craig