Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:29:22 -0400 From: Paul Kraus <paul@kraus-haus.org> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Storage question Message-ID: <5EB5C2C2-575B-40BD-BF6A-85F396C058FE@kraus-haus.org> In-Reply-To: <55EFC2DA.3020101@hiwaay.net> References: <55EF3D23.5060009@hiwaay.net> <20150908220639.20412cbd@gumby.homeunix.com> <55EF5409.8020007@yahoo.com> <55EFC2DA.3020101@hiwaay.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:24, William A. Mahaffey III <wam@hiwaay.net> wrote: > On 09/08/15 16:39, Paul Pathiakis via freebsd-questions wrote: >> Just curious, why not ZFS? It is extremely stable and then you don't = have to worry about properly sizing but you can limit the size of a = parition from growing out of control. Due to the pooling, you have = access to all your storage on the drive to all the partitions. >=20 > Good question. 1 of the new boxen (the one that is tight for storage) = is tight for CPU, quad-core AMD A4-5000, 1.5 GHz, not much firepower, & = will be tasked w/ MythTV by default, so I guessed that adding ZFS might = overpower it. I otherwise agree w/ the advantages of ZFS. Unless you turn on compression (and I would NOT on a MythTV box), ZFS is = generally not CPU bound but more constrained by RAM. I have been running = all ZFS systems on N40 and N54 CPUs (HP Micro Proliant servers) which = are dual core 1.0 and 1.3 GHz and getting reasonable speed. I can = sustain about 60 MB/sec writes via Samba with compression on. I have 8 = GB in one and 16 GB in the other. -- Paul Kraus paul@kraus-haus.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5EB5C2C2-575B-40BD-BF6A-85F396C058FE>