# Which file system do you prefer?



## fender0107401 (Oct 13, 2010)

UFS or ZFS?

I like UFS, even though ZFS is a hot topic.

I thinks I will use UFS until it lost supports.

Seems, UFS is more native for FreeBSD.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Oct 13, 2010)

ZFS but still cannot setup my FreeBSD on ZFS. If there was an option on setup for ZFS or UFS (Like Solaris setup), I would choose ZFS.


----------



## vermaden (Oct 13, 2010)

UFS2 always for / and /usr filesystems, generally for whole FreeBSD's _base system_, also for small(er) systems that does not require a lot of storage space.

ZFS for large storage (often large multi disk arrays, like RAID1/RAID10/RAID5/RAID50/...).

I havent tried how ZFS copes with database (and generally very heavy random I/O) so I cannot speak here which one is better for that kind of workload.

ZFS all the way for large storage/backup pools.


----------



## phoenix (Oct 13, 2010)

Ditto to what vermaden wrote.

UFS for the base OS (basically just the binaries and libs) which is under 2 GB (CompactFlash and USB sticks are great for this).

ZFS for everything else, including /usr/ports, /usr/src, /usr/obj, /var, /tmp, /home, /usr/local.


----------



## phoenix (Oct 13, 2010)

sk8harddiefast said:
			
		

> ZFS but still cannot setup my FreeBSD on ZFS. If there was an option on setup for ZFS or UFS (Like Solaris setup), I would choose ZFS.



PC-BSD installer can install to ZFS.  And it can be used to install vanilla FreeBSD.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Oct 13, 2010)

> PC-BSD installer can install to ZFS. And it can be used to install vanilla FreeBSD


I prefer to stay to FreeBSD  I like that comes without DE, grafical installer, grafical ports manager etc. I want to configure everything by own  Also on FreeBSD, ZFS is possible. Just I have not the knowledge yet. I wish one day made it.


----------



## phoenix (Oct 14, 2010)

Which is exactly what I said.  

Use the PC-BSD installer to install FreeBSD onto a ZFS filesystem.


----------



## Ralph_Ellis (Oct 14, 2010)

Even though UFS has a long history of reliability, ZFS is a huge improvement. Snapshots are a tremendous step forward and allow you to roll back to a previous state with just one command line. ZFS also supports compression and data integrity is incredibly well supported. Adding and removing disks from a raid is simple. The only way that you will lose data is by catastrophic failure of a single drive that is not part of a raid. Coming soon to FreeBSD and available now in the Solaris versions is deduplication.
UFS with Journaling is a step forward but it will never match ZFS for features.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Oct 14, 2010)

> Use the PC-BSD installer to install FreeBSD onto a ZFS filesystem.


But this doesn't mean KDE too? I will download PC-BSD and run the setup into Vbox to see how setup is. That makes me confused is that PC-BSD is FreeBSD with GUI setup and default DE (KDE). Right? If I run setup, maybe have option for ZFS, but have the possibility of "minimalism"? I use fluxbox with ~ 550 packages for a desktop computer. If I have the possibility of minimalistic setup (to choose no DE, no packages etc. Just have ports and build them on console), that means that after setup, will be exactly the same as FreeBSD is when finishes his setup?


----------



## olav (Oct 14, 2010)

I really like ZFS for everything, though right now its ufs on /. When it comes to DB performance I'm not really sure which is better. Because what matters is how many transactions I can complete per second, not how fast I can read data.


----------



## jem (Oct 14, 2010)

sk8harddiefast said:
			
		

> ZFS but still cannot setup my FreeBSD on ZFS. If there was an option on setup for ZFS or UFS (Like Solaris setup), I would choose ZFS.



Are you not willing to try the manual ZFS install like the one on the FreeBSD wiki?


----------



## graudeejs (Oct 14, 2010)

zfs for everything on everything


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Oct 14, 2010)

> Are you not willing to try the manual ZFS install like the one on the FreeBSD wiki?


I made a lot of tries in the past. I read a lot of tutorials, but always I couldn't copy my filesystem on the new hdd an destroyed my system, because the way to convert UFS to ZFS demands to change a lot of things on system and copy it (changed) in the new hdd. Failure means new fresh install. On me at least. Now I have a completely workable system (Only on wifi I didn't made it) so I am afraid to risk again.
If anyone have a easy tutorial to read and understand it, please post it to read it and ask question where I have problem, before start doing it. 

```
The real question is not: "Is FreeBSD good enough for you?"
The real question is: "Are you good enough for FreeBSD?"
"Don't ask what FreeBSD can do for you?
Ask what you can do for FreeBSD!"
```
I like that


----------



## Blueprint (Oct 14, 2010)

Why do you guys recommend UFS over ZFS for the base system?


----------



## phoenix (Oct 14, 2010)

sk8harddiefast said:
			
		

> But this doesn't mean KDE too?



  Which part of "vanilla FreeBSD" in my first post was confusing?

The PC-BSD installer will install the exact same FreeBSD system as the FreeBSD installer will.

Or, you can use the PC-BSD installer to install PC-BSD, along with all their changes, KDE, PBIs, etc.



> That makes me confused is that PC-BSD is FreeBSD with GUI setup and default DE (KDE). Right?



PC-BSD is FreeBSD, plus some customisations, plus pre-installed and pre-configured KDE, plus their PBI installer, etc.



> If I run setup, maybe have option for ZFS, but have the possibility of "minimalism"?



As soon as you start the installer, it asks you whether you want to install PC-BSD or FreeBSD.  Everything after that is the same (disk partition, filesystem set, network setup, install, etc).  The only difference is whether or not you boot into FreeBSD or PC-BSD after the install is complete.



> that means that after setup, will be exactly the same as FreeBSD is when finishes his setup?



Exactly.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Oct 14, 2010)

Thats sound's very good! I am thinking seriously to try it


----------



## phoenix (Oct 14, 2010)

Blueprint said:
			
		

> Why do you guys recommend UFS over ZFS for the base system?



Much simpler diagnosing and fixing of problems.

It's very rare that a UFS filesystem will be unbootable, and you can use any LiveCD to fix one that is.  It's not so rare to have a non-importable ZFS pool, and it's hard to find LiveCDs with all the ZFS tools for fixing one that is.

Once the debugging, diagnosing, and fixing tools catch up, then I may change my mind.


----------



## oliverh (Oct 15, 2010)

@phoenix mfsbsd should do the magic http://mfsbsd.vx.sk/


----------



## Blueprint (Oct 15, 2010)

phoenix said:
			
		

> It's not so rare to have a non-importable ZFS pool, and it's hard to find LiveCDs with all the ZFS tools for fixing one that is.



If this is your main concern then surely your wouldn't want to use ZFS for your data pools either? Thankfully I haven't needed to fix a broken pool yet, but are there more zfs tools available in a working system compared to the Fixit environment running off the FreeBSD DVD?

I like being able to do ZFS snapshots on the root pool before doing upgrades.


----------



## ronnylov (Oct 15, 2010)

I use ZFS for everything except swap which is on its own swap partition. I have no experience of UFS and the reason I use FreeBSD is mainly that I can use ZFS (I moved from OpenSolaris when it was killed by Oracle).


----------



## vermaden (Oct 17, 2010)

After rethinking setup from my HOWTO [1] and after *phoenix* thoughts I currently use that setup for most FreeBSD installations that include ZFS.

*LOGICAL SETUP*


```
[SIZE="3"]UFS 512m /           ro
ZFS *    /home       rw | atime=off
RAM 128m /tmp        rw | async
UFS *    /usr        ro | softupdates (mounted r/w only for packages updates)
ZFS *    /usr/obj    rw | atime=off | checksum=off
ZFS *    /usr/ports  rw | atime=off
ZFS *    /usr/src    rw | atime=off
ZFS *    /var        rw
UFS 128m /var/db/pkg ro | softupdates (mounted r/w only for packages updates)[/SIZE]
```

*PHYSICAL SETUP (LAPTOP w/ 1 DISK)*


```
[SIZE="3"]p1 8g disk0s1a 512m UFS /           newfs -m 1    /dev/label/root
      disk0s1e 128m UFS /var/db/pkg newfs -m 1 -U /dev/label/pkg
      disk0s1f    * UFS /usr        newfs -m 1 -U /dev/label/usr

p2 *g disk0s2  ZFS/home             zfs create -o mountpoint=/home      pool/home
               ZFS/var              zfs create -o mountpoint=/var       pool/var
               ZFS/usr              zfs create -o mountpoint=none       pool/usr
               ZFS/usr/src          zfs create -o mountpoint=/usr/src   pool/usr/src
               ZFS/usr/obj          zfs create -o mountpoint=/usr/obj   pool/usr/obj
               ZFS/usr/ports        zfs create -o mountpoint=/usr/ports pool/usr/ports

               (if You need SWAP, omit on CF/Pendrive/SSD disks)
               ZFS/SWAP             zfs create -V 2g                    pool/swap

RAM/SWAP 128m  /tmp                 tmpmfs=YES --> /etc/rc.conf[/SIZE]
```

*PHYSICAL SETUP (CF + DISKS)*


```
[SIZE="3"]8g CF    disk0s1a 512m UFS /           newfs -m 1    /dev/label/root
         disk0s1e 128m UFS /var/db/pkg newfs -m 1 -U /dev/label/pkg
         disk0s1f    * UFS /usr        newfs -m 1 -U /dev/label/usr

*g ZFS   ZFS/home                      zfs create -o mountpoint=/home      pool/home
         ZFS/var                       zfs create -o mountpoint=/var       pool/var
         ZFS/usr                       zfs create -o mountpoint=none       pool/usr
         ZFS/usr/src                   zfs create -o mountpoint=/usr/src   pool/usr/src
         ZFS/usr/obj                   zfs create -o mountpoint=/usr/obj   pool/usr/obj
         ZFS/usr/ports                 zfs create -o mountpoint=/usr/ports pool/usr/ports

         (if You need SWAP)
         ZFS/SWAP                      zfs create -V 2g                    pool/swap

128M RAM /tmp                          tmpmfs=YES --> /etc/rc.conf[/SIZE]
```

Of course for serious storage/backup servers it would be 'nice' to have that CF (or pendrive) mirrored via GEOM/mirror.

[1] http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=12082


----------



## cuq (Oct 19, 2010)

i I like the simplicity of ufs. i I made my backups, and what needs a version control gets mercurial, thats that's it. to To me [this] is a little overkill. it It seems  also  that zfs fails a lot, from the number of posts in tthe formus at least. i I am not an expert from any point of view but that is my opinion rigth now.

Cheers,
cuq


----------



## fronclynne (Oct 19, 2010)

Copy-on-write might be nice for ufs, but I'm not going to move to zfs for that.  The rest of it is all in that "Well, don't that beat all!" category.


----------



## Solaris (Oct 19, 2010)

sk8harddiefast said:
			
		

> But this doesn't mean KDE too? I will download PC-BSD and run the setup into Vbox to see how setup is. That makes me confused is that PC-BSD is FreeBSD with GUI setup and default DE (KDE). Right? If I run setup, maybe have option for ZFS, but have the possibility of "minimalism"? I use fluxbox with ~ 550 packages for a desktop computer. If I have the possibility of minimalistic setup (to choose no DE, no packages etc. Just have ports and build them on console), that means that after setup, will be exactly the same as FreeBSD is when finishes his setup?



Freebsd FreeBSD wiki, forum, handbook have enough information on how to install root on zfs. i  I have tested and it works  i am followed these I followed this guide: http://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS/GPTZFSBoot/Mirror, and i I am also just learneding freebsd FreeBSD and zfs for 3 weeks with much help from good fellow in freebsd FreeBSD forum, irc channel(s), handbook, manual. you You should try it, it's really not that hard to grasp the basic idea of zfs.

I am using these this zfs setup for my squid, dns, and snort server which is works great until now.


----------



## danbi (Oct 19, 2010)

Until recently, my line of though was "data on ZFS, everything else on UFS".

Then, I started building most of my servers to boot from USB FLASH drives.

Then... discovered that ZFS on an USB FLASH is way faster (because of aggregated writes), than UFS. In situations like this, you realize that UFS is sort of primitive... 

So, now, my only use for UFS is on memory constrained systems, or other cases, where ZFS is not an option.
With ZFS now working very stable without any tuning, having better performance and higher reliability this is not difficult decision. Of course, there is the learning curve, but the interface to ZFS is not complex.
The integrated volume manager is hard to beat.

I even do swap on ZFS, without (much) ill effects


----------



## vermaden (Oct 19, 2010)

danbi said:
			
		

> Then... discovered that ZFS on an USB FLASH is way faster (because of aggregated writes), than UFS. In situations like this, you realize that UFS is sort of primitive...



Why would you want to WRITE on a CF card?

It's why most of us use UFS for base system on CF/Pendrive/Flash, install on UFS, configure, mount as READ ONLY and all the rest (including all writes) goes to ZFS pools.


----------



## danbi (Oct 19, 2010)

Because, the typical life cycle of a current USB FLASH drive is way longer than the typical life cycle of an FreeBSD install. There is no serious reason to 'save' it from writing.

Of course, all my special-purpose flash based systems are read-only (for the OS part), but this is because I make extra effort for these to be replaced, not upgraded. For application servers, including my own workstation, I see no reason to make it's boot volume read only. Especially with ZFS, where the chance of corrupted filesystem is much less significant then it is with UFS.

One reason to write on a flash drive is during upgrades. On a typical not-so-fast USB FLASH drive an 'make installworld' may take many, many minutes, sometimes hours. This is because it has to write lots of small files. During this time, if anything breaks, your system may end up unusable. You may sort of speed it up with mounting async for the duration of the upgrade, but not significantly.

With ZFS, it writes as fast as the flash part can and you are safe from crashes, both because of the nature of ZFS and also because you may use snapshots on your boot/root filesystem and revert back at any time, should something fail. Also, I think using ZFS on top of flash will wear the flash part less, because of the aggregate writes (remember, when you write to flash based storage, you have to rewrite an entire flash block each time -- this is why it is so slow).


----------



## Beastie (Oct 19, 2010)

Sorry for the off-topic.



			
				danbi said:
			
		

> Then, I started building most of my servers to boot from USB FLASH drives.


You mean you boot and work all day long with a system stored on a USB pendrive? How long have you been doing this and have you ever had problems due to this prolonged use?


----------



## Eponasoft (Oct 19, 2010)

I've always only ever used UFS with FreeBSD. Until ZFS becomes the de facto standard, I'll continue to use UFS. I may use ZFS for my special project in the near future (an autonomous robot that uses FreeBSD for its brain) but for my desktop systems, UFS it is for now.


----------



## phoenix (Oct 20, 2010)

Beastie said:
			
		

> You mean you boot and work all day long with a system stored on a USB pendrive? How long have you been doing this and have you ever had problems due to this prolonged use?



My home computer uses a 2 GB USB stick (Cruzer Micro U3).  Started with FreeBSD 7.0, upgraded with each release to 8-STABLE (post 8.1).  No problems with it so far.  Just the OS is on the USB stick.

I originally ran our secondary backup storage server using 2x 2 GB USB sticks in gmirror.  They were horrible no-name sticks, but gmirror saved me and they were replaced with 4 GB CompactFlash disks.  

For just the base OS (/{usr/}{lib|bin|sbin|libexec|share|boot}), which gets hardly any writes except during OS upgrades or kernel installs, even a 2 GB USB/CF disk will last for years.


----------



## danbi (Oct 20, 2010)

I have used flash media for the OS for many years (early fbsd 4.x and bsd/os before that). Initially CF because USB support was not that good. I have never had failed out drive. Of course, just to be safe (because most such systems were far away) /var and /tmp were usually (if possible) ram disks.

The only time this has failed on me was with a pair of 512MB Kingston CF cards "lifetime warranty".. The weird thing was that those were always used read-only. At some point, they failed to read certain sectors. Writing over, they were happily working again.

Of course, you can be hit really bad by poor quality USB media. I had recently two 16GB HP v165w USB sticks fail on me, while scrubbing their ZFS. Bad is they were in mirror and both failed at the same time -- probably controller died, might be issue with the motherboard. The replacements work so far, but I am wary of this particular model. The "same" (v165w) 4GB sticks are ok -- I have few dozens in production servers.


----------



## Crivens (Oct 20, 2010)

danbi said:
			
		

> On a typical not-so-fast USB FLASH drive an 'make installworld' may take many, many minutes, sometimes hours. This is because it has to write lots of small files.


For the initial setup I would suggest to use a file based MD and transfer that one en-block to the slice on the stick. You can keep that image around and update it, backup it, version control it... Updating the system currently running would not be possible in this way, but using another boot stick and switching them before rebooting can seriously save your lower back by having the previous, known to work, boot medium still at hand in case something went total wrong, like dropping some important devices from the kernel.

Another plus side for the paranoid would be that once ZFS is mounted the image can be compared and restored should someone decide to mess with your boot media.


----------



## Beastie (Oct 20, 2010)

What I always fear about live systems on pendrives is the high temperatures the drives can reach in just minutes. But I guess it is unfounded fear since internal disks get very hot too.


----------



## CalBear96 (Oct 23, 2010)

(if You need SWAP, omit on CF/Pendrive/SSD disks)
               ZFS/SWAP             zfs create -V 2g                    pool/swap

Why omit SWAP on an SSD?  Write cycles on a small amount of space on a limited life disk?  I am getting a laptop with SSD.  Would you still recommend not having SWAP?  thanks for your help.

Dave


----------



## richardpl (Oct 24, 2010)

I prefer tmpfs or ufs on mdX.
I dream about having zettabytes of RAM.


----------



## Crivens (Oct 25, 2010)

I already toasted one USB stick, one of the small ones who only stick out about 4mm.
Placed it in the hub, checked later and it is completely passive now. So using sticks which have sufficient cooling surface seems to be in order for boot media.



			
				richardpl said:
			
		

> I prefer tmpfs or ufs on mdX.
> I dream about having zettabytes of RAM.



... and a bullet proof suspend/resume I guess?


----------



## Beastie (Oct 25, 2010)

Crivens said:
			
		

> I already toasted one USB stick, one of the small ones who only stick out about 4mm.
> Placed it in the hub, checked later and it is completely passive now. So using sticks which have sufficient cooling surface seems to be in order for boot media.


Have you tried buying a waterproof one and plunging everything but the connectors into a cup of water (USB cord required)? LOL


----------



## Crivens (Oct 25, 2010)

Beastie said:
			
		

> Have you tried buying a waterproof one and plunging everything but the connectors into a cup of water (USB cord required)? LOL



No, that would result in long discussions about the WAF of such a construction.

BTW, doing such things may result in cooling, but also in having hardware which does not work while being cooled. Even when the cooling media is not conductive it has different characteristics for magnetic or electric fields.


----------



## sk8harddiefast (Oct 26, 2010)

Now I am running PCBSD installation dvd on my laptop. Yes. PCBSD have option to install FreeBSD on zfs  And have also 2 installs. PCBSD and FreeBSD


----------



## mururoa (Oct 27, 2010)

For me this is zfs all the way outside swap.
Zfs was not there when I moved from linux to FreeBSD but now I would be annoyed if I had to live without it.
I'm on my way to setup a new storage server and my choice is between FreeBSD and OpenIndiana(OpenSolaris) just because I can have native zfs on them. Linux is not an option with lvm or zfs on fuse.


----------



## oliverh (Nov 2, 2010)

danbi said:
			
		

> Because, the typical life cycle of a current USB FLASH drive is way longer than the typical life cycle of an FreeBSD install. There is no serious reason to 'save' it from writing.
> 
> Of course, all my special-purpose flash based systems are read-only (for the OS part), but this is because I make extra effort for these to be replaced, not upgraded. For application servers, including my own workstation, I see no reason to make it's boot volume read only. Especially with ZFS, where the chance of corrupted filesystem is much less significant then it is with UFS.
> 
> ...



Then you should read the experience of a FreeBSD developer:

http://www.leidinger.net/blog/2010/11/02/are-usb-memory-sticks-really-that-bad/


----------



## danbi (Nov 2, 2010)

Not all USB sticks are created equal (see my posts earlier in the thread). There are some 'no name' sticks that are rock solid, while some from reputable sources fail miserably. This has nothing to do with the 'USB FLASH' as such -- just poor quality control on commodity stuff. There are of course industrial USB FLASH drives out there 

The thing that typically fails in the today's USB FLASH media is the controller. It may be due to overheating, bad design, bad power supply or whatever, but not because you 'write too much' to the media. Flash media has limited write cycles, but these are far, far more than any OS install will ever need. This was my point. You need not cripple the OS, when using flash media.

The issue with the way flash media works are more related to the fact that you do full page overwrites and an filesystem that groups writes, like ZFS does, helps great detail.


----------



## Galactic_Dominator (Nov 2, 2010)

oliverh said:
			
		

> Then you should read the experience of a FreeBSD developer:
> 
> http://www.leidinger.net/blog/2010/11/02/are-usb-memory-sticks-really-that-bad/


Hm, I just got a shipment of 5 WD hard drives from newegg.  2 were DOA.  Does that mean hard drives are really that bad or does it mean anecdotal evidence isn't really evidence?

danbi is correct, a USB drive preforming to spec is a great option.  Like with any other hardware, preforming to spec is not always something to take for granted unfortunately.

http://www.bress.net/blog/archives/114-How-Long-Does-a-Flash-Drive-Last.html


----------



## Eponasoft (Nov 2, 2010)

Galactic_Dominator said:
			
		

> Hm, I just got a shipment of 5 WD hard drives from newegg.  2 were DOA.  Does that mean hard drives are really that bad or does it mean anecdotal evidence isn't really evidence?


Actually, it means that the supplier you got them from sucks... well, eggs.  I've avoided newegg for years now because of their long-standing reputation for selling crap.


----------



## Galactic_Dominator (Nov 2, 2010)

Eponasoft said:
			
		

> Actually, it means that the supplier you got them from sucks... well, eggs.  I've avoided newegg for years now because of their long-standing reputation for selling crap.



What does the supplier have to do with it?  They got it from the same vendor.  It's not like any of them take special care to take it out the box and gravity test it.  Newegg is great, low prices and the shipments are actually what you ordered.


----------



## irkkaaja (Nov 3, 2010)

phoenix said:
			
		

> PC-BSD installer can install to ZFS.  And it can be used to install vanilla FreeBSD.



This _needs_ to be more widely publicized. I, for one, had no idea about this. I looked at PC-BSD but turned away from it because their package management system struck me as totally ridiculous, and I didn't want KDE. And to be honest, sysinstall is a royal pain.

A graphical install of normal FreeBSD is probably what it would take to convince a lot of my BSD-curious (hahahaha) friends to take the proverbial plunge.

Perhaps we should steal their installer and allow people to download an .iso from freebsd.org that only installs normal FreeBSD by default? Seeing as finstall is going about as well as the war in Iraq.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Nov 3, 2010)

The topic is 'preferred file systems'. Return to it.


----------



## carlton_draught (Nov 3, 2010)

The only thing I don't use ZFS for is swap. If someone has some information that says that the problems with using ZFS for swap are fixed, I'll switch that over too.


----------



## oliverh (Nov 6, 2010)

Galactic_Dominator said:
			
		

> Hm, I just got a shipment of 5 WD hard drives from newegg.  2 were DOA.  Does that mean hard drives are really that bad or does it mean anecdotal evidence isn't really evidence?
> 
> danbi is correct, a USB drive preforming to spec is a great option.  Like with any other hardware, preforming to spec is not always something to take for granted unfortunately.
> 
> http://www.bress.net/blog/archives/114-How-Long-Does-a-Flash-Drive-Last.html



Well, he isn't starting a flamewar, he asks for response. As you can see, it's a FreeBSD-dev and I do think he is aware of the fine differences between different brands. There are no real numbers about the wear-out or quality per se of USB thumb drives, so comparing it to harddrives is like comparing Apple and Oranges.


----------



## akitaro (Nov 6, 2010)

After Oracle bought Sun, I'm not sure of clear prospects for ZFS...


----------



## oliverh (Nov 6, 2010)

Well, it's still open source, but we have top cope with a delay in terms of the latest and greatest code. So there is nothing to worry about, at least in the near future.


----------



## carlton_draught (Nov 6, 2010)

akitaro said:
			
		

> After Oracle bought Sun, I'm not sure of clear prospects for ZFS...


It's production ready now. All of the important features were designed into it at birth, anyway. The most important for me (and anyone who has had to deal with silent data corruption) is the ability to verify that every thing is as it was and is supposed to be, and the redundancy to repair it. 

However, having used it I also love the way it just throws out all the rigmarole that goes with other filesystems. E.g. I want to clone a filesystem. With zfs it's just zfs send and receive, which also confirms that the data written is the data read. Irrespective of the size of the destination pool. I don't have to worry about partition sizes, disk sizes, expanding partitions or any of that nonsense. ZFS is a thing of beauty.


----------



## arli (Nov 8, 2010)

UFS2 always...
about slowly to upgrade HDD first if i can. bit 0 or 1 to store speed it's hardware operation i thank..


----------

