From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 21 17:15:00 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01369106566C for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:15:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C208FC20 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:14:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5LHEtCe004986; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:14:55 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q5LHEsQj004983; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:14:54 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:14:54 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Polytropon In-Reply-To: <20120621185538.a9aa6e5b.freebsd@edvax.de> Message-ID: References: <20120621185538.a9aa6e5b.freebsd@edvax.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:14:55 +0200 (CEST) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Fred Morcos Subject: Re: New to FreeBSD - Some questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:15:00 -0000 > the experimental development branch -HEAD, it _might_ happen that > the system doesn't even compile, but updated 30 minutes after > that "accident", it runs fine again. :-) > And finally unless doing tests or using private not-really-important computer, don't just install newest FreeBSD because it's out. I - and lot of others - still use 8.* for production while 9.* is out already for some time. Anyway i think that "bleeding edge" -HEAD release is still more stable than "stable" linux kernel. >> q) I would assume UFS with J+SU is "fast enough" for a laptop? > > I think so. For a laptop, you _might_ consider adding encryption. > Just in case. You never know. for a server - you MUST do this :) >> q) The second laptop has an SSD, would UFS with/without J and >> with/without SU or ZFS make more sense for it? > > There are several parameters that you can tweak (see "man tunefs"), > I would suggest a single partition spanning the whole SSD, and > journaling would not be contraproductive. s/would not/would/ i assume this as mistake. do not journal on SSD. it increases amount of writes, and fsck is quick anyway. do not forget of -t option with newfs (TRIM enable)