From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 10 08:50:56 2010 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 8613B1065677 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:50:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dick@nagual.nl) Received: from mail.nagual.nl (cc535223-a.groni1.gr.home.nl [82.73.72.175]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF7A8FC15 for ; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:50:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.11.34] [192.168.11.34] by arwen (Axigen) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA id 133375; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:52:39 +0200 Message-ID: <4C6112F5.7020202@nagual.nl> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:51:01 +0200 From: Dick Hoogendijk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nl; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AxigenSpam-Level: 4 Subject: gmirror of zfs mirror 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, 10 Aug 2010 08:50:56 -0000 I'm convinced that ZFS mirroring is far better than gmirroring, but the latter uses much less memory (I think). My server has 3Gb and is solely used as server (web, files/nfs/samba, dns, mail). The data is serves does not change much, so I would think the data integrity checks of ZFS although useful do not serve a very high purpose. If a disk goes bad it can be replaced using gmirror and/or ZFS. Why would it be the preferred way to use ZFS over gmirror? I know ZFS (I come from opensolaris). I'm not that familiar with gmirror. Hence the doubts..;-)