Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 18:47:10 +0100 From: "Graeme Dargie" <arab@tangerine-army.co.uk> To: "Wojciech Puchar" <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, <FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org> Cc: Howard Jones <howard.jones@network-i.net>, Valentin Bud <valentin.bud@gmail.com> Subject: RE: FreeBSD & Software RAID Message-ID: <01FB8F39BAD0BD49A6D0DA8F7897392956CB@Mercury.galaxy.lan.lcl> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905251907460.39949@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----Original Message----- From: Wojciech Puchar [mailto:wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl]=20 Sent: 25 May 2009 18:09 To: FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org Cc: Howard Jones; Graeme Dargie; Valentin Bud Subject: Re: FreeBSD & Software RAID > > I have looked at ZFS recently. Appears to be a memory hog, needs about 1 > GB especially if large file transfers may occur over gigabit ethernet while it CAN be set up on 256MB machine with a little big flags in=20 loader.conf (should be autotuned anyway) - it generally takes as much=20 memory as it's available, and LOTS of CPU power. with similar operations ZFS takes 10-20 TIMES more CPU than UFS and it's NOT faster than properly configured UFS. doesn't make any sense _______________________________________________ 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" Ok granted this is a server sat in my house and it is not a "mission" critical server in a large business, personally I have can live with ZFS taking a bit longer vs resilience. From just looking at my system at the moment I have 1.8GB of free ram from a total of 4GB. Regards=20 Graeme
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?01FB8F39BAD0BD49A6D0DA8F7897392956CB>