Originally Posted by Kickaha
Yup, nor should you care.
You don't care right now that your files are split and scattered all over a drive, do you?
I think people are worried that if one drive fails, half their files will become corrupt/destroyed.
What they don't understand is that even if the two drives were considered seperate and even if one had control over which files go into which drive, there's no way to know which drive will fail, so the same situation occurs...one loses files. Maybe less than half the files, but maybe more than half. Depends how the person decided to store his files. It's a 50/50 gamble.
They also don't realize that ZFS can detect the symptoms of a failing drive...the file system will attempt to move files off the failing hard drive and onto the good hard drive. And because of this, ZFS is the superior solution.
I'd rather have a file system that pools hard drive capacity and that attempts to stuff all the files onto the good hard drives when one of them is failing than many seperate hard drives with a file system that is too dumb to save the files from the failing hard drive.
Sounds a lot like "I'd rather be rich than stupid."
If people want to visualize the concept, they should picture the way RAM works. Adding more RAM to a computer simply pools the memory capacity of each RAM chip (well, the OS does it) and makes it available to the OS and all apps. There's no segregation anymore...nobody can assign a particular RAM chip's memory capacity to a particular app...and if one RAM chip fails, chances are the user will see a the wonderful kernel panic curtain of death unfold before his eyes and some data will be lost. It's the same for hard drives.