UFS(2, 3 ?) vs ZFS.

[Jim Capozzoli]

On 6/15/07, Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:
> 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
>
>
Yeah, but at the rate they're making computers with more and more ram,
probably in 2 years or so a gig of ram will be like what we think of
256 megs today...some people already do regard a gig as not that much
even.  Personally, I have a 1.5 gigs in my machine.

-- 
Jim Capozzoli
D6499626857801B6065013E3645A6B75