Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 06:58:32 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Gary Gatten <Ggatten@waddell.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD & Software RAID Message-ID: <4A1CD688.4020604@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <70C0964126D66F458E688618E1CD008A0793ED94@WADPEXV0.waddell.com> References: <4A1AA3DC.5020300@network-i.net> <200905261238.52979.kirk@strauser.com><70C0964126D66F458E688618E1CD008A0793ED91@WADPEXV0.waddell.com> <4A1C3725.8040509@infracaninophile.co.uk> <70C0964126D66F458E688618E1CD008A0793ED94@WADPEXV0.waddell.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
Gary Gatten wrote:
> What about with PAE and/or other extension schemes?
Doesn't help with the KVM requirement, and still only provides a 4GB address
space for any single process.
> If it's just memory requirements, can I assume if I don't have a $hit
> load of storage and billions of files it will work "ok" with 4GB of RAM?
> I guess I'm just making sure there isn't some bug that only exists on
> the i386 architecture?
ZFS should work on i386. As far as I know there aren't any killer bugs that
are architecture specific, but I'm no expert. Unless your aim is to learn about
ZFS I personally wouldn't bother with it on an i386 system: you'll almost
certainly get a lot better performance and a lot less grief out of UFS under
those conditions.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
Kent, CT11 9PW
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEAREIAAYFAkoc1ogACgkQ8Mjk52CukIwZ2gCcCUlxsGyz92Oa48QLaqwEDBMs
ylEAoInLE56Ai6iGvYwXZd/+cKfN0iur
=dy+4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A1CD688.4020604>