Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:04:16 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS Message-ID: <20140718180416.715cdc0b@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <CALfReycWppVY5BYHeqvunvnUDtwPAke5vug0Kik2_JTnvvfArQ@mail.gmail.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> <CALfReyf8Rg7rCcob4jSk9XbPLY0MpP52jno9vZ0GUFQGS0Vy-A@mail.gmail.com> <20140716143929.74209529@gumby.homeunix.com> <CALfReycWppVY5BYHeqvunvnUDtwPAke5vug0Kik2_JTnvvfArQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:48:24 +0100 krad wrote: > "I don't understand why you think that. My point was that losing > random files from everything can be far more disruptive than losing > files from a single mountpoint." > > Well thats why you would use copies=1+n one each dataset that was on a > single drive. That way you wouldnt lose anything. If your that worried > about drive failures though you should be using some kind of raid. Usually the reason someone adds extra drives to a desktop is that they need extra storage. I very much doubt that many people are going to want to keep multiple copies of everything. In any case ZFS isn't guaranteed to be able to keep copies on separate drives. Drive failure is by far the most important source of data loss on Desktops, and with decent journalling (or equivalent), practically the only thing worth worrying about for most people. Data rot will occur, but it's unlikely it will make a difference to desktop data. > "I was really more interested in whether ZFS (with ARC) is faster than > UFS with FreeBSD's own file caching. A lot of people say that putting > an OS on SSD gives a significant speed-up. 16GB should be more than > enough to keep the important system files in memory, so it sounds like > smarter caching might be useful." > > If you want speed sure UFS is faster on the same machine, but thats > because its doing less. Yes, I know ZFS has overheads, but ARC is potentially better than OS caching. The question was whether, with a decent amount memory, ZFS can actually be faster than UFS.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140718180416.715cdc0b>