From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 15 18:34:14 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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 828D516A400 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:34:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F38213C45B for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:34:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A471A4D81; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:33:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [192.168.1.5]) by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B914B512C2; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 71B1BBE8F; Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 14:34:13 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: Albert Shih Message-ID: <20070615183413.GA9693@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <20070615165131.GC51206@pcjas.obspm.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="envbJBWh7q8WU6mo" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070615165131.GC51206@pcjas.obspm.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS(2, 3 ?) vs ZFS. 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: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:34:14 -0000 --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:51:31PM +0200, Albert Shih wrote: > Hi all >=20 > Anyone known what's the futur of ufs2 ? Is there any plan to make a ufs3 > for very large FS (> 2TB) . Or the plan is to use classic ufs for / & /u= sr and lets > use ZFS for /home=20 ZFS will remain an optional alternative because of the licensing, so UFS and future derivatives are here to stay. UFS2 does not have problems with creating filesystems >2TB so there is no need for a UFS3 on that account. Kris --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGctulWry0BWjoQKURAv3hAJ92PAkNUoJZHyuTS5tlWcKk/R1IswCfTUfq Z+1ctg3NHIvyNiQT1n8EDnQ= =3CEx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo--