Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:25:12 -0400 From: "Jim Capozzoli" <saltmiser@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS(2, 3 ?) vs ZFS. Message-ID: <37f72b1f0706151225s53c8c2f1k17d00c9c6f96004d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070615183413.GA9693@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <20070615165131.GC51206@pcjas.obspm.fr> <20070615183413.GA9693@rot13.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/15/07, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:51:31PM +0200, Albert Shih wrote: > > Hi all > > > > Anyone known what's the futur of ufs2 ? Is there any plan to make a ufs3 > > for very large FS (> 2TB) . Or the plan is to use classic ufs for / & /usr and lets > > use ZFS for /home > > ZFS will remain an optional alternative because of the licensing, so > UFS and future derivatives are here to stay. > Yeah, but you know because of how nice ZFS is, a concept of using ZFS for /home and UFS for everything else will probably turn into a tradition or something. ;) Why couldn't one make it so you have ZFS capability during a FreeBSD install, ZFS licensing isn't that bad is it? > UFS2 does not have problems with creating filesystems >2TB so there is > no need for a UFS3 on that account. > > Kris > > -- Jim Capozzoli D6499626857801B6065013E3645A6B75
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37f72b1f0706151225s53c8c2f1k17d00c9c6f96004d>