Can someone please provide more details between SnapRaid and ZFS?
The only difference I can find is that ZFS does checksums, but may not do parity. ZFS is able to heal but using another copy (mirror) of the file. Snapraid heals by using parity. I presume parity takes less space than a mirror, therefore Snapraid is more space efficient.
Does that sum it up correctly?
zfs and snapraid are extremely different.
zfs does everything "on write" while snapraid does everything when you run it (snapraid sync)
zfs has many many many more features (encryption, snapshots, clones, etc, etc) but can't take out one freakin disk you added by mistake (in snapraid all disks are independent)
zfs is insanely complicated (both good and bad). I had zfs on the same box it would take sometimes days to destroy one clone (but it was all "checksum on write" and stuff.
The obvious difference is that ZFS is a filesystem and SnapRAID is an application program.
Also, they are not mutually exclusive.
There are numerous practical differences, as well. It makes no sense to list all the numerous differences without having a context to put it in. In other words, rather than trying to list differences, you should look at your requirements and then see what features of ZFS or SnapRAID are relevant.
Check the comparison table at:
Log in to post a comment.