From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 29 08:23:25 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 A5B363B4 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:23:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yk0-x229.google.com (mail-yk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::229]) (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 5F9EF28A0 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 08:23:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yk0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 131so5388583ykp.28 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:23:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=d0LsVM/0d37mfjOIacr3QZpsLQM5AsKCPtkr/6J0dbg=; b=eWubuArjHIne3Ntzvq3m+74+66GRLZXJvSqL71dKU9rQQ0c7ZxdW3o/F1Vu/yJ+f2L 0n3yPqzMKKVtrBxBhrExlldQ5QLTXHlbSE6GA8CEDhhQTqkTBpkB7OIaSM2o5gTfPKy+ h2pTkFcVgG8Yzea1z0NUdSu92eq9jdVZIKff4tJYaRYkziuaBdn0OQ36fE4muw6JHFma DNAR/8LyEF2Zq5/hd5gBmsFZmt6Kthi0VNOTXJEH1B1o36x/6Mbqbr8/Txdd9RvZLGGc Vc2V/4zoXxKAmwZR9afFyWUN4XDhZKKNZMQK1g6i+mc08kWEMrFn7F11nhBF7yweTU2e 5PuQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.18.195 with SMTP id l43mr841180yhl.150.1406622204474; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:23:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.132.80 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Jul 2014 01:23:24 -0700 (PDT) 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> <20140716143929.74209529@gumby.homeunix.com> <20140718180416.715cdc0b@gumby.homeunix.com> <20140722133305.228a1690@gumby.homeunix.com> <8699AF5D2BE8E9EBCFFEEE17@192.168.1.50> <20140722222722.70f13ec9@gumby.homeunix.com> <20140724002912.5eda1757@gumby.homeunix.com> <98DFE7A36ED2EBA26E6C710C@192.168.1.50> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:23:24 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS From: krad To: "Peter A. Giessel" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18 Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" 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, 29 Jul 2014 08:23:25 -0000 you are correct, however if you can afford to put big drives like that one a system you can afford to match up a far more modern cpu with the drives with a decent amount of ram. Something like the hp microserver is little more than =C2=A3100 and is more than capable of handling zfs. 5-6 year old = 2nd had kit is as well and it probably cheaper. Also your going to have to get pretty creative to get a modern sata/sas drive to work in an ((e)*isa|mca) based board, which will nullify any cost saving of using decades old hardware. On 24 July 2014 01:47, Peter A. Giessel wrote: > > > On Jul 23, 2014, at 16:40, Daniel Staal wrote: > > > > If you have multiple disks, ZFS with raid/mirroring is nearly *always* = a > better choice than UFS, in my opinion. Exceptions would be things like > dedicated database servers and such, where you have applications basicall= y > constructing their own file systems on top of the OS's file system. > > "Always"... Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is if you are > still using i386 (cheap/old hardware) without lots of RAM (1-2 GB) and > large disks (3/4/5TB), zfs is not going to be a good choice. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >