Storage question

William A. Mahaffey III wam at
Wed Sep 9 16:06:23 UTC 2015

On 09/09/15 10:35, Paul Kraus wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:24, William A. Mahaffey III <wam at> wrote:
>> On 09/08/15 16:39, Paul Pathiakis via freebsd-questions wrote:
>>> Just curious, why not ZFS?  It is extremely stable and then you don't have to worry about properly sizing but you can limit the size of a parition from growing out of control.  Due to the pooling, you have access to all your storage on the drive to all the partitions.
>> Good question. 1 of the new boxen (the one that is tight for storage) is tight for CPU, quad-core AMD A4-5000, 1.5 GHz, not much firepower, & will be tasked w/ MythTV by default, so I guessed that adding ZFS might overpower it. I otherwise agree w/ the advantages of ZFS.
> Unless you turn on compression (and I would NOT on a MythTV box), ZFS is generally not CPU bound but more constrained by RAM. I have been running all ZFS systems on N40 and N54 CPUs (HP Micro Proliant servers) which are dual core 1.0 and 1.3 GHz and getting reasonable speed. I can sustain about 60 MB/sec writes via Samba with compression on. I have 8 GB in one and 16 GB in the other.
> --
> Paul Kraus
> paul at

Hmmmm .... could you amplify on that point about no compression w/ 
MythTV ? This box will have 16 GB of RAM & 32 GB of swap, so I *think* I 
will be OK on RAM. I will probably stream video over my network most of 
the time, but might be using the ZFS as well .... I just got done 
copying the stuff from verbatim into 
2 shell scripts to automate the setup, but if there are known issues w/ 
MythTV & ZFS+compression, more rethinking will be needed.


	William A. Mahaffey III


	"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
	 ever devised by man."
                            -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list