From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 16 13:14:09 2011 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 D70CA1065679 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:14:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925898FC1A for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:14:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R4YF5-00044w-Q9 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:14:07 +0200 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:14:07 +0200 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:14:07 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:13:53 +0200 Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: <20110916063153.200375qdq59crf8c@mail.top-consulting.net> <4E732FDF.9080307@gmail.com> <20110916073013.37776ih29rdcux8o@mail.top-consulting.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110907 Thunderbird/6.0.1 In-Reply-To: <20110916073013.37776ih29rdcux8o@mail.top-consulting.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Subject: Re: FS of choice for max random iops ( Maildir ) 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: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:14:09 -0000 On 16/09/2011 13:30, freebsd@top-consulting.net wrote: > Is zfs supposed to be faster if you let it manage the disks directly ? > Not necessarily faster (in fact, RAID-Z variants have known limitations which are not so pronounced in RAID5/6), but definitely more convenient and in some respects safer. I would test very carefully if you need speed and stability from ZFS. For one thing, you will probably want to reduce the block size in ZFS to 8K or such.