Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:16:09 +0200 From: Dick Hoogendijk <dick@nagual.nl> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS(2, 3 ?) vs ZFS. Message-ID: <x7odjhdldi.fsf@nagual.nl> In-Reply-To: <20070615214849.F63508@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> (Wojciech Puchar's message of "Fri\, 15 Jun 2007 21\:49\:14 %2B0200 \(CEST\)") References: <20070615165131.GC51206@pcjas.obspm.fr> <20070615183413.GA9693@rot13.obsecurity.org> <37f72b1f0706151225s53c8c2f1k17d00c9c6f96004d@mail.gmail.com> <20070615214849.F63508@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> writes: >>> UFS and future derivatives are here to stay. >>> >> Yeah, but you know because of how nice ZFS is, a concept of using >> ZFS for /home and UFS for everything else will probably turn into a > > if ZFS will really be so nice i will be making small (50MB) > partition for /boot files, ZFS on rest. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/ zfs _is_ nice but bear in mind it is still in development. There are issues. But overall it might become a very important FS. Even booting off zfs became available. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: F86289CE ++ http://nagual.nl/ + Solaris 11 05/07 ++
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?x7odjhdldi.fsf>