Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 12:48:18 -0500 From: David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: Howard Jones <howard.jones@network-i.net>, FreeBSD-Questions@freebsd.org, Graeme Dargie <arab@tangerine-army.co.uk>, Valentin Bud <valentin.bud@gmail.com> Subject: Re: FreeBSD & Software RAID Message-ID: <20090525174818.GA32121@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905251907460.39949@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <4A1AA3DC.5020300@network-i.net> <01FB8F39BAD0BD49A6D0DA8F7897392956C7@Mercury.galaxy.lan.lcl> <139b44430905250937u3410ac24g1f0b9f89a0d51f22@mail.gmail.com> <20090525165618.GB8441@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905251907460.39949@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 07:09:15PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > >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 > loader.conf (should be autotuned anyway) - it generally takes as much > 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 It makes a certain degree of sense. Sometimes things have to be done wrong for us to realize how good we had it before. How would we know how great FreeBSD is if we didn't have Linux? I had to look at ZFS to decide not to use it when I rebuild my storage this week due to a failing drive. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net ======================================================================== Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090525174818.GA32121>