From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 16 13:39:38 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 13341D8D for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:39:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) (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 9BE9F2988 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:39:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id ho1so1348461wib.10 for ; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 06:39:35 -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=zfxr+UyuLljG76baHsZLguLUyq4Ej7n+xBL0YzzvRcM=; b=shIsFw6uR5B0UXpRF3Uh9sn4Km4xHuttPQCXHzTb53odVTDQEuSwZfRlmk/rY3Njoo sFFfbPCDHaBzWpdlMzwKkVUd+16FkBE2byCFTwA7MQ8JNUk/QAijzQBEcXE+fGurmpwg hoHIGbncOxZGiCybiYjZfSJbn2VFxyMXYWkXiw2nMVo5SyYysUminqF21REqm3Y3IIi8 zpnpU7nwQal1xYm9uWnAC/9PJsJs3P3pek018TgMkz+hPQwrYfhFbQgYJKs0rDop39rZ QadFIFSdJ5RMgt+zzejc7W3iMRSlmHORdK7vsIIlsNjcLDDlJdnPOi9jmbM+fe2zUeLa 9MZA== X-Received: by 10.194.87.97 with SMTP id w1mr36463924wjz.42.1405517975570; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 06:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (4e5670bd.skybroadband.com. [78.86.112.189]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fw4sm9145216wib.19.2014.07.16.06.39.34 for (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 06:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:39:29 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS Message-ID: <20140716143929.74209529@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: 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> 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: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 13:39:38 -0000 On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:27:59 +0100 krad wrote: > UFS with SU+J surely, gjournal is now depreciated in 9.x onwards In common with a lot of people I don't have much faith in SU+J. Do you have a source for gjournal being deprecated? I don't see any mention of it in the man page. > Its your choice of course, but the spreading around argument doesn't > hold water as all file systems will do that over time, and what you > are implying is you will only ever use a small % of the drive. 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. > zfs will happily rocket along with 16gb if its a desktop system 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.