From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 15 13:38:25 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABD42FC2 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:38:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 437FE2722 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:38:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id m15so5563936wgh.29 for ; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 06:38:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=c2dQ/Pa7jfW2dlb679pbGsVbs+c356Cv3o89BHB25AY=; b=sqSo66AzT7S0tNdYMw8DhQZpMgNJ8mgX6cVe5FMXiFwnJyagymcZdqfBEC79I0VWR4 qsS3cIKo+ksDuffMnwW9upFub5gzAd4htKDUWkrdVanyqzrC8q5vmNzUkGnWQg/qTNBq 5oXKY+fN+NhfM3l11sBM2tAOjrSAQiskExPe8h1hTw8K3WeJYaJGcIpFRBI+IIq0AkzK RlfYk4+U5qC2qsGMFrwosQY/ZdlHp64humnWlKEkPpqg1tG8SSs6lRORpr4mRgNSwEHN fz5H4WYnmFwIUxNFiXAI4DVwEojN4tjWqvZdpZp88LqENYLcOpTSm4DspZDo3Q1ECRBH i8qw== X-Received: by 10.180.37.230 with SMTP id b6mr5698006wik.47.1405431503451; Tue, 15 Jul 2014 06:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (4e5670bd.skybroadband.com. [78.86.112.189]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id w5sm43947268wif.3.2014.07.15.06.38.22 for (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Jul 2014 06:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:38:21 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS Message-ID: <20140715143821.23638db5@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20140714111221.5d4aaea9@X220.alogt.com> References: <20140713190308.GA9678@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org> <20140714071443.42f615c5@X220.alogt.com> <53C326EE.1030405@my.hennepintech.edu> <20140714111221.5d4aaea9@X220.alogt.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.22; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:38:25 -0000 On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:12:21 +0800 Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 19:40:14 -0500 > Andrew Berg 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.