From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 14 22:40:59 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A856106566B for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:40:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from v.velox@vvelox.net) Received: from vulpes.vvelox.net (vulpes.vvelox.NET [74.200.198.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8038FC41 for ; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:40:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from v.velox@vvelox.net) Received: from vixen42 (c-68-51-74-1.hsd1.il.comcast.net [68.51.74.1]) (Authenticated sender: v.velox) by vulpes.vvelox.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 826DBB839; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:42:51 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:42:17 -0500 From: "Zane C.B." To: Ryan Coleman Message-ID: <20080614174217.40173e4d@vixen42> In-Reply-To: <48544214.4070409@cwis.biz> References: <4853D980.9030304@cwis.biz> <20080614165408.55e74f8d@vixen42> <48544214.4070409@cwis.biz> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.4.0 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i386-portbld-freebsd6.3) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Testing RAM 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: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:40:59 -0000 On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:11:32 -0500 Ryan Coleman wrote: > Zane C.B. wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:45:20 -0500 > > Ryan Coleman wrote: > > > > > >> How would I go about slamming the RAM in testing? I was figuring > >> I'd drop from 4GB to 1GB and just push the board with the same cp > >> -rvn commands I've been running in an attempt to populate my 7TB > >> RAID5. > >> > >> Also, am I using the wrong FS for the RAID? I partitioned it with > >> gpt (1 large slice) and formatted it with newfs but is there > >> another way? A better way? I read about ZFS recently but I am > >> sure the speed of reading from a RAID5 is lost with it's > >> redundancies. > > > > For something that large, ZFS would be my choice > I take it that's not something I can do after the fact, right? I am > not looking forward to redoing 1.6TB in file copying a second time Not that I am aware of. My big reason I would go with ZFS is it would make future updates easier as you can do it on the fly if the disks are just being added to a system.