From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 26 17:38:58 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B339C106564A for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 17:38:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kirk@strauser.com) Received: from kanga.honeypot.net (kanga.honeypot.net [IPv6:2001:470:a80a:1:21f:d0ff:fe22:b8a8]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A8E8FC16 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 17:38:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kirk@strauser.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kanga.honeypot.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA05B980 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 12:38:57 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at honeypot.net Received: from kanga.honeypot.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (kanga.honeypot.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QH9QLqZiz5LS for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 12:38:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: from athena.localnet (athena.daycos.com [IPv6:2001:470:c054:1:221:9bff:fe00:de3f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by kanga.honeypot.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4DDAB978 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 12:38:55 -0500 (CDT) From: Kirk Strauser To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:38:52 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.3 (Linux/2.6.28-11-generic; KDE/4.2.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <4A1AA3DC.5020300@network-i.net> In-Reply-To: <4A1AA3DC.5020300@network-i.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200905261238.52979.kirk@strauser.com> Subject: Re: FreeBSD & Software RAID X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 17:38:58 -0000 On Monday 25 May 2009 08:57:48 am Howard Jones wrote: > I'm was half-considering switching to ZFS, but the most positive thing I > could find written about that (as implemented on FreeBSD) is that it > "doesn't crash that much", so perhaps not. That was from a while ago > though. Wojciech hates it for some reason, but I wouldn't let that deter you. I'm using ZFS on several production machines now and it's been beautifully solid the whole time. It has several huge advantages over UFS: - Filesystem sizes are dynamic. They all grow and shrink inside the same pool, so you don't have to worry about making one too large or too small. - You can sort of think of a ZFS filesystem as a directory with a set of configurable, inheritable attributes. Set your /usr/ports to use compression, and tell /home to keep two copies of everything for safety's sake. - Snapshots aren't painful. It's been 100% reliable on every amd64 machine I've put it on (but avoid it on x86!). 7-STABLE hasn't required any tuning since February or so. UFS and gstripe/gmirror/graid* are good, but ZFS has spoiled me and I won't be going back. -- Kirk Strauser