deciding UFS vs ZFS

[krad]

you are correct, however if you can afford to put big drives like that one
a system you can afford to match up a far more modern cpu with the drives
with a decent amount of ram. Something like the hp microserver is little
more than £100 and is more than capable of handling zfs. 5-6 year old 2nd
had kit is as well and it probably cheaper. Also your going to have to get
pretty creative to get a modern sata/sas drive to work in an ((e)*isa|mca)
based board, which will nullify any cost saving of using decades old
hardware.


On 24 July 2014 01:47, Peter A. Giessel <pgiessel at mac.com> wrote:

>
> > On Jul 23, 2014, at 16:40, Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net> wrote:
> >
> > If you have multiple disks, ZFS with raid/mirroring is nearly *always* a
> better choice than UFS, in my opinion.  Exceptions would be things like
> dedicated database servers and such, where you have applications basically
> constructing their own file systems on top of the OS's file system.
>
> "Always"...  Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is if you are
> still using i386 (cheap/old hardware) without lots of RAM (1-2 GB) and
> large disks (3/4/5TB), zfs is not going to be a good choice.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>