3 ms·
HFS+ is old an ugly but in practical terms it's good enough. Obviously you cannot rely on any single file system no matter how many mirror/parity disks you thro
by jsz0 12y ago
HFS+ is old an ugly but in practical terms it's good enough. Obviously you cannot rely on any single file system no matter how many mirror/parity disks you throw at it. You need at least one local backup on an independent file system / disks and ideally also an offsite backup. The odds of HFS+ corruption of the same file 3 different file systems are incredibly low.
- lallysingh 12y agoBacking up a ZFS volume would have detected the corruption error, giving you a chance to (a) not make a backup of the corrupted version and (b) restore a good version from disk. In the same situation, HFS+ would let you make a backup of corrupted data. If you don't keep all your historical backups, you may end up unwittingly tossing out the last backups with good versions of those files. I'm sorry, I don't understand your last sentence.
- XorNot 12y agoIf you're backing up without versions, you're inviting disaster.