From owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Sat Feb 23 14:16:55 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512AA1517853 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 14:16:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) Received: from raven.bwct.de (raven.bwct.de [195.149.99.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "raven.bwct.de", Issuer "raven.bwct.de" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68B8A8C719 for ; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 14:16:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) Received: from mail.cicely.de ([10.1.1.37]) by raven.bwct.de (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x1NEGpAs000470 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 23 Feb 2019 15:16:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cicely.de; s=default; t=1550931412; bh=hP2GjssAXfz6Vs8kKSz/FfTf7kZyR4LyIDWQezIeMmM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To; b=pjBx0ekTSlAcuD1uKkZYCC8AfbCcqdR7KL3M1mUc0Ob7ZMvilCqYtJfGI3Zm3WYSh EtRDgKtFfDxwh93D332BRcBUdJUniKjdhOZllWWmJDXlFwK3j7rvz+6uAs4ifbSMMK GEJmFs6NpeLNmfzgPr/UXBPkHOk7bX3fwwlUp8uc= Received: from cicely7.cicely.de (cicely7.cicely.de [10.1.1.9]) by mail.cicely.de (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1NEGm55015961 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 23 Feb 2019 15:16:48 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) Received: from cicely7.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely7.cicely.de (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x1NEGmZR005862; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 15:16:48 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely7.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely7.cicely.de (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x1NEGmvv005861; Sat, 23 Feb 2019 15:16:48 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 15:16:48 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: Stefan Parvu Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RBPI3B+ FreeBSD 12 ZFS Message-ID: <20190223141648.GR93368@cicely7.cicely.de> Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de References: <5D976A97-9800-4A9F-A155-F3BD998AFB4C@kronometrix.org> <19ed5715-f1f1-6c5d-5dc6-e9c5225e5445@denninger.net> <1ED1A0A0-C569-433C-9341-30C40BC4CBF7@kronometrix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1ED1A0A0-C569-433C-9341-30C40BC4CBF7@kronometrix.org> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely7.cicely.de 12.0-STABLE amd64 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9 autolearn=ham version=3.3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on spamd.cicely.de X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 68B8A8C719 X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=cicely.de header.s=default header.b=pjBx0ekT X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.62 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[ticso@cicely.de]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[cicely.de:s=default]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.996,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[cicely.de]; REPLYTO_DOM_NEQ_FROM_DOM(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.16)[0.159,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[cicely.de:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[3.99.149.195.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.20.0]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: mx1.bwct.de]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.97)[-0.967,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:21461, ipnet:195.149.99.0/24, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-0.00)[country: DE(-0.01)] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 14:16:55 -0000 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 http://www.bwct.de Modbus/TCP Ethernet I/O Baugruppen, ARM basierte FreeBSD Rechner uvm.