Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:27:59 +0100 From: krad <kraduk@gmail.com> To: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS Message-ID: <CALfReyf8Rg7rCcob4jSk9XbPLY0MpP52jno9vZ0GUFQGS0Vy-A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140715143821.23638db5@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <20140713190308.GA9678@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org> <20140714071443.42f615c5@X220.alogt.com> <53C326EE.1030405@my.hennepintech.edu> <20140714111221.5d4aaea9@X220.alogt.com> <20140715143821.23638db5@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
UFS with SU+J surely, gjournal is now depreciated in 9.x onwards Its your choice of course, but the spreading around argument doesn't hold water as all file systems will do that over time, and what you are implying is you will only ever use a small % of the drive. Checksuming is never useful until is saves your ass, pretty much like house insurance. You don't needs it and it hurts you to have pay it, but all of a sudden when you do need it, you are very grateful you did have it. Plus you will get early warning on drive failures, rather than just failures (assuming you did copies >1, on a one drive system). zfs will happily rocket along with 16gb if its a desktop system On 15 July 2014 14:38, RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:12:21 +0800 > Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 19:40:14 -0500 > > Andrew Berg <aberg010@my.hennepintech.edu> wrote: > > > > > On 2014.07.13 18:14, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > use UFS as long as you are working with a single disk and ZFS the > > > > moment you have more than one disk. > > > Checksumming and the COW features make ZFS quite attractive for > > > single-device pools as well. > > > > there are also other features which could make ZFS attractive for > > single disk systems. But moving to a second disk only makes ZFS not > > just attractive but basically a must. > > On a desktop, without raid, I would expect ZFS to make things a lot > worse in the case of a disk failure because it would spread the damage > around all the directories. > > For that reason I'm putting my desktop user data on ufs/gjournal, but I > was wondering about putting the OS on ZFS. I don't think I'd get much > benefit from Checksumming, COW, compression etc, but I was wondering > whether ARC does a significantly better job of caching to justify ZFS's > overheads; I have 16GB of RAM. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALfReyf8Rg7rCcob4jSk9XbPLY0MpP52jno9vZ0GUFQGS0Vy-A>