mfaridi said:I think ZFS is not good , because I see some where speed copy is slow than UFS
rusty said:one thing I find very useful is the timeslider feature
danbi said:If you care about your data, you should use ZFS. It is that simple.
gordon@ said:I'm curious where this assertion comes from. Is using UFS somehow being careless with your data? UFS has been around a very long time and is well vetted.
danbi said:If you care about your data, you should use ZFS. It is that simple.
ZFS is fast enough, sometimes faster than UFS. It may be 'slow' on slow (really old) hardware, especially if you enable things like filesystem compression. I guess UFS will be as slow there, or slower, if it ever supported such options. ZFS is certainly faster than any USB flash stick!
ZFS requires memory for decent performance, but it can be tuned to use less memory and still be fast. In a typical desktop, way more memory is wasted for other things.
On very memory restrained systems, say 64MB RAM, you will always be better with UFS of course.
Curiously, ZFS on USB stick is way faster than UFS, if you do anything different that copy single large file to the flash media.
I have switched my desktop to ZFS about a year ago and as a rule, all of the FreeBSD systems I build since then, servers or workstations are ZFS-only.
UFS SoftUpdates+Journal maybe ?oliverh said:What we need for the future is some filesystem "in between", something with more features but which is less a resource hog than ZFS.
Ouch! :e I would really like to hear why because I am a strong ZFS supporter.oliverh said:Apart from that, I don't think there is an open source future for ZFS, but that's a different story.
gkontos said:UFS SoftUpdates+Journal maybe ?
Ouch! :e I would really like to hear why because I am a strong ZFS supporter.
You can say that again.oliverh said:Well, I don't trust Oracle, just watch the latest news about this company or look at their history.