Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:42:43 +0200 From: Kaya Saman <SamanKaya@netscape.net> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New user - small file server questions and quick GUI question Message-ID: <4B393463.5060504@netscape.net> In-Reply-To: <6201873e0912281420n590b173dtac94f9936cca6e3@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B3927EB.4030802@optiplex-networks.com> <6201873e0912281420n590b173dtac94f9936cca6e3@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Running with no xorg.conf is fine, but you need to make sure dbus and > hal are started at boot. Follow the handbook for best results. > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/x-config.html I'm sure I started them as this doc is exactly what I followed...... I think if I recall correctly or at least something like it?? Anyway as explained I will use Vbox to check 100% and then at least have proper logs and cli output to compare to and give everyone an idea of what's going on unlike now! > > > If you're concerned about system resources, at least from a minimalist > perspective, then ZFS is not for you. Solaris can't help you with > that either, ZFS is hungry. ZFS is also not "standard", but > considered production ready. UFS is still the standard, and the only > filesystem supported by the installer without resorting to tricks. Yes ZFS is hungry :-) I run Solaris 10 on an ancient Sun Netra T105 server with 360MB of RAM which uses ZFS file system and apart being a reverse proxy it won't handle anything else easily. Also my E420r server with 1GB of RAM running Sun Ray software is limited to just that and can only handle 1 Ray unit on top of the SXCE (Solaris Express Community Edition) OS. I know how strong UFS v.1 is as I use it with Solaris 9, but how about UFS v.2 which is what FreeBSD runs?? When compared with ext3 from a performance/reliability perspective which one comes on top? Also if something goes wrong with the filesystem what are the tools to check the drive and repair errors as in Linux I use e2fsck followed by device ID. As mention UFS v.1 is incredibly strong especially when run on SCSI II drives that the Sun Netra T105 uses so I haven't had an FS failure yet and if UFS v.2 is similar I don't suspect having a failure either although this machine will have IDE drives and uses x86 architecture as opposed to SPARC. In fact I am only really after ZFS for its self healing properties as I don't mind going with any file system as long as it's stable. Ext3 although easily repairable is quite unstable on my systems anyway! > > All the other services work well on FreeBSD. > > > -- > Adam Vande More Cool, thanks Adam! :-) I appreciate the response. Kaya
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4B393463.5060504>