Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:23:24 +0100 From: krad <kraduk@gmail.com> To: "Peter A. Giessel" <pgiessel@mac.com> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS Message-ID: <CALfReycKiTm74a0wy=K%2BZhyXxVBHyNwedy4SOvw3_UUYnZaMbA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <EF37D3F4-2B8E-4695-8C75-8ADEE0F91F5A@mac.com> References: <20140713190308.GA9678@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org> <20140714071443.42f615c5@X220.alogt.com> <53C326EE.1030405@my.hennepintech.edu> <20140714111221.5d4aaea9@X220.alogt.com> <20140715143821.23638db5@gumby.homeunix.com> <CALfReyf8Rg7rCcob4jSk9XbPLY0MpP52jno9vZ0GUFQGS0Vy-A@mail.gmail.com> <20140716143929.74209529@gumby.homeunix.com> <CALfReycWppVY5BYHeqvunvnUDtwPAke5vug0Kik2_JTnvvfArQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140718180416.715cdc0b@gumby.homeunix.com> <CALfReycMdd-jNvRaiyXO4A=C3eFwuugL74HNoKyb2q4um1L5pg@mail.gmail.com> <20140722133305.228a1690@gumby.homeunix.com> <8699AF5D2BE8E9EBCFFEEE17@192.168.1.50> <20140722222722.70f13ec9@gumby.homeunix.com> <C9D2EE68EC3894786D119AFD@192.168.1.50> <20140724002912.5eda1757@gumby.homeunix.com> <98DFE7A36ED2EBA26E6C710C@192.168.1.50> <EF37D3F4-2B8E-4695-8C75-8ADEE0F91F5A@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
you are correct, however if you can afford to put big drives like that one a system you can afford to match up a far more modern cpu with the drives with a decent amount of ram. Something like the hp microserver is little more than =C2=A3100 and is more than capable of handling zfs. 5-6 year old = 2nd had kit is as well and it probably cheaper. Also your going to have to get pretty creative to get a modern sata/sas drive to work in an ((e)*isa|mca) based board, which will nullify any cost saving of using decades old hardware. On 24 July 2014 01:47, Peter A. Giessel <pgiessel@mac.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 16:40, Daniel Staal <DStaal@usa.net> wrote: > > > > If you have multiple disks, ZFS with raid/mirroring is nearly *always* = a > better choice than UFS, in my opinion. Exceptions would be things like > dedicated database servers and such, where you have applications basicall= y > constructing their own file systems on top of the OS's file system. > > "Always"... Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is if you are > still using i386 (cheap/old hardware) without lots of RAM (1-2 GB) and > large disks (3/4/5TB), zfs is not going to be a good choice. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALfReycKiTm74a0wy=K%2BZhyXxVBHyNwedy4SOvw3_UUYnZaMbA>