Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:04:52 -0600 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Kaya Saman <SamanKaya@netscape.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New user - small file server questions and quick GUI question Message-ID: <6201873e0912281504j552d6351mf64d8e566d54bcef@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B393463.5060504@netscape.net> References: <4B3927EB.4030802@optiplex-networks.com> <6201873e0912281420n590b173dtac94f9936cca6e3@mail.gmail.com> <4B393463.5060504@netscape.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Kaya Saman <SamanKaya@netscape.net> wrote: > I know how strong UFS v.1 is as I use it with Solaris 9, but how about UFS > v.2 which is what FreeBSD runs?? When compared with ext3 from a > performance/reliability perspective which one comes on top? > I would say ufs2 easily wins, but remember this is the freebsd-questions list ;) There are some differences though, ufs2 uses softupdates, not journaling(journaling is available and easy to implement via gjournal). Softupdates I believe are a little faster than journaling, but it's drawback is long disk checking after a dirty shutdown. I've never had a ufs specific issue in hundreds if not thousands of deployments, but nothing is guaranteed. ufs does have a great track records and bunch of service hours logged. > > Also if something goes wrong with the filesystem what are the tools to > check the drive and repair errors as in Linux I use e2fsck followed by > device ID. > Example after a dirty shutdown: fsck -y > In fact I am only really after ZFS for its self healing properties as I > don't mind going with any file system as long as it's stable. Ext3 although > easily repairable is quite unstable on my systems anyway! That's actually a bit disconcerting, do you have hardware instability? -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6201873e0912281504j552d6351mf64d8e566d54bcef>