Re: UFS performance oddities
Agreed, ZFS on 32-bit CPUs is pretty much a lost cause at this point - I tried using Freenas 8--32-bit with ~2GB of RAM, and it was unstable using Zfs. It's $dying-architecture anyhow, and would prolly need months of work to get the code sorted (which would be a nice thing if Google Summer of Code wants to tackle it. Think of ZFS re-ported to use native 32-bit internals, due to intentionally limited storage expectations - say ~2TB disk max. Would be nice for a home NAS builder on a budget that just wants to re-purpose their old P4 with 2-3GB RAM or the like, and doesn't want to grow it out too much.)
ZFS currently works nice on 64-bit with 4GB of RAM+, or 2GB RAM if you're using a Cloud server. I wouldn't recommend it on 32-bit Intel/AMD, although YMMV if they still make a 32-bit Solaris/clone.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: christoph@debian.org
> Sent: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:26:26 -0700
> To: dg@cowlark.com
> Subject: Re: UFS performance oddities
>
> Hi!
>
> David Given <dg@cowlark.com> writes:
>>> ZFS should of course be unaffected by the above issue, and be the
>>> best-performing choice of filesystem here.
>>
>> Is ZFS viable on a 32-bit system? The FreeBSD wiki page on it (which,
>> being a wiki, is of course out of date, unrepresentative and probably
>> wrong) claims that these system is still prone to running out of memory
>> and panicking.
>
> If you're not having several GB of RAM it's just pain and won't gain you
> anything
>
> Regards
>
> Christoph
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 87r4qd5xtp.fsf@mitoraj.siccegge.de">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 87r4qd5xtp.fsf@mitoraj.siccegge.de
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D EARTH SCREENSAVER - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth
Reply to: