Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:39:29 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: deciding UFS vs ZFS Message-ID: <20140716143929.74209529@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <CALfReyf8Rg7rCcob4jSk9XbPLY0MpP52jno9vZ0GUFQGS0Vy-A@mail.gmail.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:27:59 +0100 krad wrote: > UFS with SU+J surely, gjournal is now depreciated in 9.x onwards In common with a lot of people I don't have much faith in SU+J. Do you have a source for gjournal being deprecated? I don't see any mention of it in the man page. > Its your choice of course, but the spreading around argument doesn't > hold water as all file systems will do that over time, and what you > are implying is you will only ever use a small % of the drive. I don't understand why you think that. My point was that losing random files from everything can be far more disruptive than losing files from a single mountpoint. > zfs will happily rocket along with 16gb if its a desktop system I was really more interested in whether ZFS (with ARC) is faster than UFS with FreeBSD's own file caching. A lot of people say that putting an OS on SSD gives a significant speed-up. 16GB should be more than enough to keep the important system files in memory, so it sounds like smarter caching might be useful.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140716143929.74209529>