Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:23:24 +0100
From:      krad <kraduk@gmail.com>
To:        "Peter A. Giessel" <pgiessel@mac.com>
Cc:        "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS
Message-ID:  <CALfReycKiTm74a0wy=K+ZhyXxVBHyNwedy4SOvw3_UUYnZaMbA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EF37D3F4-2B8E-4695-8C75-8ADEE0F91F5A@mac.com>
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> <CALfReyf8Rg7rCcob4jSk9XbPLY0MpP52jno9vZ0GUFQGS0Vy-A@mail.gmail.com> <20140716143929.74209529@gumby.homeunix.com> <CALfReycWppVY5BYHeqvunvnUDtwPAke5vug0Kik2_JTnvvfArQ@mail.gmail.com> <20140718180416.715cdc0b@gumby.homeunix.com> <CALfReycMdd-jNvRaiyXO4A=C3eFwuugL74HNoKyb2q4um1L5pg@mail.gmail.com> <20140722133305.228a1690@gumby.homeunix.com> <8699AF5D2BE8E9EBCFFEEE17@192.168.1.50> <20140722222722.70f13ec9@gumby.homeunix.com> <C9D2EE68EC3894786D119AFD@192.168.1.50> <20140724002912.5eda1757@gumby.homeunix.com> <98DFE7A36ED2EBA26E6C710C@192.168.1.50> <EF37D3F4-2B8E-4695-8C75-8ADEE0F91F5A@mac.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
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 <pgiessel@mac.com> wrote:

>
> > On Jul 23, 2014, at 16:40, Daniel Staal <DStaal@usa.net> 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"
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALfReycKiTm74a0wy=K+ZhyXxVBHyNwedy4SOvw3_UUYnZaMbA>