Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:13:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Jim Capozzoli <saltmiser@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS(2, 3 ?) vs ZFS. Message-ID: <20070624211222.I2720@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <37f72b1f0706231127s2e0f0316k91238543b925c757@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070615165131.GC51206@pcjas.obspm.fr> <20070615183413.GA9693@rot13.obsecurity.org> <37f72b1f0706151225s53c8c2f1k17d00c9c6f96004d@mail.gmail.com> <20070615214255.GA12923@rot13.obsecurity.org> <37f72b1f0706231127s2e0f0316k91238543b925c757@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >> It could be done. At the present time ZFS is not really suitable on >> systems without a lot of memory (I'd recommend at least 1GB). It is >> also very hard to tune it to perform well on i386 because of VM and >> address space issues. It might be possible to address these over >> time. 1GB for disk and filesystem? nice joke :) even worse than windows.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070624211222.I2720>