Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 15:16:48 +0100 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely7.cicely.de> To: Stefan Parvu <sparvu@kronometrix.org> Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RBPI3B+ FreeBSD 12 ZFS Message-ID: <20190223141648.GR93368@cicely7.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <1ED1A0A0-C569-433C-9341-30C40BC4CBF7@kronometrix.org> References: <E387BB48-540D-4F5C-BD4D-2BF410108219@kronometrix.org> <a0239ad1-5b98-1149-1d14-966ed8670e79@denninger.net> <5D976A97-9800-4A9F-A155-F3BD998AFB4C@kronometrix.org> <19ed5715-f1f1-6c5d-5dc6-e9c5225e5445@denninger.net> <1ED1A0A0-C569-433C-9341-30C40BC4CBF7@kronometrix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 06:16:04PM +0200, Stefan Parvu wrote: > > > I'm trying to figure out the use case. > > First of all Im trying to understand, if this would even work on a 64bit > RBPI board and STABLE 12.0. Just curiosity. I do recall old days when I was > working in Sun ZFS systems would require some RAM to work correctly. > > Then we found more robust and resilient ZFS for different workloads than UFS > regarding data corruption, power outages etc. So I was thinking I could experiment with > our application RBPI UFS and replace that with ZFS. Exactly that's the reason why I'm using ZFS. Especially with fragile cards. It also is quite a bit faster on cards as it tends to write more linear to them and faster writes usually also mean that the cards won't wear out as fast as with slow write patterns. -- B.Walter <bernd@bwct.de> http://www.bwct.de Modbus/TCP Ethernet I/O Baugruppen, ARM basierte FreeBSD Rechner uvm.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190223141648.GR93368>