3 ms·
99+ percent of people wouldn't have a use for it. there are a select few of us who are zfs fanatics who really love and use the feature set. i'm a huge fan of
by coconut08 4y ago
99+ percent of people wouldn't have a use for it. there are a select few of us who are zfs fanatics who really love and use the feature set.
i'm a huge fan of snapshots and having backups on my nas. one might say you could use time machine for that but last time i checked time machine was absolutely terrible for backing up large files as you would get from for example a parallels virtual machine. zfs backups are way better for this since not only is it faster because it only sends the modified blocks, it also takes orders of magnitudes less space because it also only stores modified blocks. zfs also has the added benefit having a plethora open source tools and documentation.
it also allows people to dogfood and familiarize themselves with zfs if they plan to or need to use it for other things.
apfs and time machine are largely a black box and you need to use it in the way that apple expects you to use it. it has the added benefit of being a next gen filesystem that is cross platform unlike apfs.
- varenc 4y agodigression: on macOS it is possible to manage apfs snapshots manually, though it's not great. You take a snapshot with `tmutil snapshot /`, list them with `tmutil listlocalsnapshots /`, and then use the undocumented `tmutil mountlocalSnapshots / <snapshot date>` command to mount a local snapshot. Deleting a snapshot is frustrating though. macOS thins them automatically as the free disk space diminishes. Or you can sort of trigger snapshot deletion with `tmutil thinlocalsnapshots <mount_point> [purgeamount] [urgency]` but it's not explicit what will get thinned. Also all snapshots are at the root file system level. No where near as powerful as zfs, but enough control for my personal uses without relying too much on the whole time machine GUI.