![]() There are an array of flaws with the tools but, despite that, they are unbelievable powerful and you can do things in NixOS you can't dream of doing elsewhere, and it makes things like using OpenZFS or whatever pretty easy and simple. Even things like basic GUI installers that can set up your filesystem don't exist! Manually screwing with partition layouts to get volume encryption isn't easy to use at all, honestly. Admittedly I think we're better off than we were 7 years ago, but it's still not a grand slam. I think I spent something like 3 weeks porting my server configuration from Ubuntu to NixOS, by hand, piece by piece, many years ago. Despite the prosthelytization you'll get from many died-in-the-wool users who forgot what it was like in the beginning, in order to use NixOS effectively you either need to learn Nix, or be willing to spend a lot of time on IRC asking questions, which will end up with. I'm sure it's possible to trash a ZFS volume but it's stood strong on some pretty dubious hardware configurations for me and where most other file systems would have failed. Not to mention frequent unscheduled power cuts, kernel panics (unrelated to ZFS), and so on and so forth. It's worked flawlessly when SATA controllers have died (one motherboard would randomly drop HDDs when the controllers experienced high IOPS - which would be enough to trash any normal file system but ZFS survived it with literally no data loss). If Btrfs only works when hardware is behaving then that is absolutely a problem with Btrfs.Īs for my experience with ZFS, it's kept consistency when disks have died. Heck, even in the 90s this was a known problem hence chkdsk on DOS marking bad sectors to somewhat mitigate data corruption on FAT file systems. ZFS was very much intended to be resilient when faced with bad hardware. That's the whole point of raiding and checksumming. Next gen file systems are supposed to be resilient even if hardware fails. Even after performing such benchmarks and seeing good results in an artificial situation, you might see slowdowns if your CPU is busy and you need to read or write files.> if you dig deep enough into the problem, often the hardware is found to be at fault You won’t actually know how much space you’ll save and how the performance is different unless you actually enable the option and benchmark it on your files and hardware. RELATED: How to Stress Test the Hard Drives in Your PC or Server ![]() This option can be enabled on USB flash drives and other external hard drives to save a bit of space, but–again–getting a larger drive is probably a better solution. This could slow file access times down in some cases. Plus, even if you have a computer with a fast CPU, your computer’s CPU may be busy when it comes time to read or write files. A larger drive will give you much more space than enabling compression would, anyway, and usually pretty cheaply. But if you’re buying or building a speedy computer, you’re probably better off buying a larger drive–or a secondary drive–so you can store more files without having to compress them. Your CPU can keep up with the compression. If you have a computer with a faster CPU, you can probably enable this option fairly safely. But that slower CPU means enabling compression will tax your system and slow things down. That’s unfortunate because a cheap Windows notebook or tablet will often have a small amount of storage, making this option tempting. This is especially true on slow laptops and tablets. If you have a computer with a slower CPU, you should probably avoid this option. The exact space savings will depend on your drive and the files on it. In 2011, Tom’s Hardware did a benchmark and found that enabling NTFS compression for a Windows system drive shrunk the drive from an original size of 70.9 GB to a compressed size of 58.4 GB, for a 17.6% space savings. zip files, too, of course.)īut the NTFS compression algorithm is optimized to be more speedy and lightweight, so it compresses less than similar file compression algorithms. (You’d see similar huge space savings by compressing those. On the other hand, if you compress a drive full of text files (.txt files), you’ll likely see huge space savings. zip files are already compressed files and the additional compression won’t do much. For example, if you compress a drive full of. If the drive contains files that are already compressed or just don’t compress well, you won’t save much space.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |