Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 18:03:56 -0400 From: Paul Kraus <paul@kraus-haus.org> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Storage question Message-ID: <7B220197-47CF-4A4A-A312-13870D8C3C9A@kraus-haus.org> In-Reply-To: <55EF5409.8020007@yahoo.com> References: <55EF3D23.5060009@hiwaay.net> <20150908220639.20412cbd@gumby.homeunix.com> <55EF5409.8020007@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 8, 2015, at 17:32, Paul Pathiakis via freebsd-questions = <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> wrote: > Just curious, why not ZFS? It is extremely stable and then you don't = have to worry about properly sizing but you can limit the size of a = parition from growing out of control. Due to the pooling, you have = access to all your storage on the drive to all the partitions. I second the =93why not ZFS=94 question here, even under 9.3. While it a = harder to install a zfs-only system under 9.x, you can. I built a number = of them before 10.x came out, some still in production. In addition to = the ability to (almost) dynamically move space around between = =93filesystems=94, you get the end to end data integrity features. -- Paul Kraus paul@kraus-haus.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7B220197-47CF-4A4A-A312-13870D8C3C9A>