From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 21 19:26:30 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55B01065672 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:26:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx02.qsc.de (mx02.qsc.de [213.148.130.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D3A8FC17 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:26:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-40-10.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.40.10]) by mx02.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE30280F5; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:26:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id q5LJQSjB003926; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:26:28 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:26:28 +0200 From: Polytropon To: Wojciech Puchar Message-Id: <20120621212628.6020680e.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: References: <20120621185538.a9aa6e5b.freebsd@edvax.de> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:26:30 -0000 On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:14:54 +0200 (CEST), Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > 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. For home desktops, usually -STABLE is a good solution. Server maintainers tend to use -RELEASE-pX (which also makes binary updates easier). > >> 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 :) It's worth mentioning that it's not good practice to have a keyfile-based decryption which is "unlocked" by a USB stick permanently sticking in the server. Security is nearly zero in such a constellation. Passphrase-based decryption is good as long as you have physical access to the server and only you (and maybe those you trust) have a secure (!!!) password which needs to be entered manually at system startup to "unlock" the /home drive or partition. > >> 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. Good you spotted it - of course there is no need for journaling in this case (too much writes, no real benefit). -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...