deciding UFS vs ZFS
kraduk at gmail.com
Mon Jul 21 08:23:43 UTC 2014
You seem to be getting away from your initial statement, which you said zfs
would make it worse, and journaled ufs. I really dont see this being the
case, yes there are scenarios where u will get a screwed pool, but thats
the case with any file system. If you are on a desktop and you dont, care
about your data and would prefer to have the speed sure use ufs, but if you
do care use zfs. Any i3 or better desktop, with 4gb+ ram is going to handle
zfs fine, unless you are going to be using some heavy io or ram based
tasks, in which case you would probably want more ram and zfs's striping
On 18 July 2014 18:04, RW <rwmaillists at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:48:24 +0100
> krad wrote:
> > "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."
> > Well thats why you would use copies=1+n one each dataset that was on a
> > single drive. That way you wouldnt lose anything. If your that worried
> > about drive failures though you should be using some kind of raid.
> Usually the reason someone adds extra drives to a desktop is that they
> need extra storage. I very much doubt that many people are going to
> want to keep multiple copies of everything. In any case ZFS isn't
> guaranteed to be able to keep copies on separate drives.
> Drive failure is by far the most important source of data loss
> on Desktops, and with decent journalling (or equivalent), practically
> the only thing worth worrying about for most people. Data rot will
> occur, but it's unlikely it will make a difference to desktop data.
> > "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."
> > If you want speed sure UFS is faster on the same machine, but thats
> > because its doing less.
> Yes, I know ZFS has overheads, but ARC is potentially better than OS
> caching. The question was whether, with a decent amount memory, ZFS can
> actually be faster than UFS.
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-questions