Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 14:38:21 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS Message-ID: <20140715143821.23638db5@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20140714111221.5d4aaea9@X220.alogt.com> References: <20140713190308.GA9678@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org> <20140714071443.42f615c5@X220.alogt.com> <53C326EE.1030405@my.hennepintech.edu> <20140714111221.5d4aaea9@X220.alogt.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:12:21 +0800 Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 19:40:14 -0500 > Andrew Berg <aberg010@my.hennepintech.edu> wrote: > > > On 2014.07.13 18:14, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > use UFS as long as you are working with a single disk and ZFS the > > > moment you have more than one disk. > > Checksumming and the COW features make ZFS quite attractive for > > single-device pools as well. > > there are also other features which could make ZFS attractive for > single disk systems. But moving to a second disk only makes ZFS not > just attractive but basically a must. On a desktop, without raid, I would expect ZFS to make things a lot worse in the case of a disk failure because it would spread the damage around all the directories. For that reason I'm putting my desktop user data on ufs/gjournal, but I was wondering about putting the OS on ZFS. I don't think I'd get much benefit from Checksumming, COW, compression etc, but I was wondering whether ARC does a significantly better job of caching to justify ZFS's overheads; I have 16GB of RAM.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140715143821.23638db5>