UFS(2, 3 ?) vs ZFS.

[Kris Kennaway]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 03:25:12PM -0400, Jim Capozzoli wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 06:51:31PM +0200, Albert Shih wrote:
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> Anyone known what's the futur of ufs2 ? Is there any plan to make a ufs3
> >> for very large FS (> 2TB) . Or the plan is to use classic ufs for /  & 
> >/usr and lets
> >> use ZFS for /home
> >
> >ZFS will remain an optional alternative because of the licensing, so
> >UFS and future derivatives are here to stay.
> >
> Yeah, but you know because of how nice ZFS is, a concept of using ZFS
> for /home and UFS for everything else will probably turn into a
> tradition or something. ;)  Why couldn't one make it so you have ZFS
> capability during a FreeBSD install, ZFS licensing isn't that bad is
> it?

It could be done.  At the present time ZFS is not really suitable on
systems without a lot of memory (I'd recommend at least 1GB).  It is
also very hard to tune it to perform well on i386 because of VM and
address space issues.  It might be possible to address these over
time.

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20070615/dfd2d9ea/attachment.pgp