From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Sep 9 16:06:23 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D70B9CC7F3 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:06:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wam@hiwaay.net) Received: from fly.hiwaay.net (fly.hiwaay.net [216.180.54.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CBA61D21 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:06:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wam@hiwaay.net) Received: from kabini1.local (dynamic-216-186-222-143.knology.net [216.186.222.143] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by fly.hiwaay.net (8.13.8/8.13.8/fly) with ESMTP id t89G6LaY015210 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:06:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Storage question To: FreeBSD Questions References: <55EF3D23.5060009@hiwaay.net> <20150908220639.20412cbd@gumby.homeunix.com> <55EF5409.8020007@yahoo.com> <55EFC2DA.3020101@hiwaay.net> <5EB5C2C2-575B-40BD-BF6A-85F396C058FE@kraus-haus.org> From: "William A. Mahaffey III" Message-ID: <55F058FC.6080204@hiwaay.net> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:11:50 -0453.75 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5EB5C2C2-575B-40BD-BF6A-85F396C058FE@kraus-haus.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:06:23 -0000 On 09/09/15 10:35, Paul Kraus wrote: > On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:24, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > >> On 09/08/15 16:39, Paul Pathiakis via freebsd-questions wrote: >>> Just curious, why not ZFS? It is extremely stable and then you don't have to worry about properly sizing but you can limit the size of a parition from growing out of control. Due to the pooling, you have access to all your storage on the drive to all the partitions. >> Good question. 1 of the new boxen (the one that is tight for storage) is tight for CPU, quad-core AMD A4-5000, 1.5 GHz, not much firepower, & will be tasked w/ MythTV by default, so I guessed that adding ZFS might overpower it. I otherwise agree w/ the advantages of ZFS. > Unless you turn on compression (and I would NOT on a MythTV box), ZFS is generally not CPU bound but more constrained by RAM. I have been running all ZFS systems on N40 and N54 CPUs (HP Micro Proliant servers) which are dual core 1.0 and 1.3 GHz and getting reasonable speed. I can sustain about 60 MB/sec writes via Samba with compression on. I have 8 GB in one and 16 GB in the other. > > -- > Paul Kraus > paul@kraus-haus.org Hmmmm .... could you amplify on that point about no compression w/ MythTV ? This box will have 16 GB of RAM & 32 GB of swap, so I *think* I will be OK on RAM. I will probably stream video over my network most of the time, but might be using the ZFS as well .... I just got done copying the stuff from https://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS/GPTZFSBoot/9.0-RELEASE verbatim into 2 shell scripts to automate the setup, but if there are known issues w/ MythTV & ZFS+compression, more rethinking will be needed. -- William A. Mahaffey III ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.