It's not like ZFS requires everything to be in one folder. You still have your folder structure. But redundancy and drive management is a thing of the past. Soon you will be able to store your folders in one safe volume. If one drive goes down, you know, replace it, and no data lost.<br><br>People used to carve up their hard drives into multiple partitions. That no longer is as common as it used to be. There's no good reason to do so. It's an artificial construct that people impose on themselves, rather than change with the times and get organized based on something more efficient than the size of individual boxes their data spans.<br><br>Eric<br><br>I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it. - Mark Twain<br>

"I don't see the problem ...just choose "redundant" right? Or is there something i'm missing?"<br><br>I think the point to take away here is that while ZFS may be a great file system, there is no magic involved. If you "choose" redundancy, then you must add disks for that. The notion of just adding another disk if more storage is needed is true if you don't want redundancy. Otherwise, it's a matter of adding disk(s). The point being, the larger your pool (of disks), the more likely one of the disks will fail. If you're running a raid setup, it will recover, but that means you would need more disks. <br><br>Most consumers will neither purchase nor configure raid setups. Again, this is great for the server environment, but not very practical for the average consumer. It's great that Apple is pursuing ZFS. At some point, Apple may need something better. For the average consumer, ZFS doesn't really bring much to the table.<br><br>

Thanks Poly... that 'splains it all. That IS pretty neat... I'm facing THAT problem now with 4 HDs (some internal - some external).<br><br><br><br>David (OFI)

As SteveS mentioned I am glossing over the ease of use. I'm hoping Apple does some miracle work on that account.<br><br>