# Can ZFS be something for me



## roelof (Jul 5, 2012)

Hello, 

I read here a lot about ZFS and I use this box for normal desktop use.
E-mail, a little bit LISP programming and surfing.

Is it wise to use ZFS or can I better stick with UFS.

Roelof


----------



## throAU (Jul 6, 2012)

How much RAM do you have?  Is your machine x86 or x64?


----------



## roelof (Jul 6, 2012)

I have 4G Ram and it's a x64 machine with a Intel core 2 processor and I have some 100G avaible on one disk for FreeBSD.


----------



## roelof (Jul 7, 2012)

Nobody who can tell me if ZFS can be better for me then stick with UFS.

Roelof


----------



## jdn06 (Jul 7, 2012)

In my opinion, ZFS is very useful:
- for a storage or backup server to keep data integrity
- for a mail & web server with jails, to backup the jails without service interruption (very quick snapshots capabilities)

But it can be a lot of fun to use it in a desktop with some script allowing a "Time Machine"-like service, but on the filesystem level. You are the only person who can say whether it would be useful to you or not...


----------



## FIlIPy65 (Jul 7, 2012)

I don't see reason to you use ZFS on a 100GB partition to desktop uses.

UFS has a lot of good features that you can enjoy, ZFS have a lot of more. I think you will underuse that partition with ZFS, and so you will not gain nothing, and yet maybe loose some thing.

If you're still confused, use and benchmark both and share your tests with us. =)

Cheers.


----------



## roelof (Jul 7, 2012)

oke, clear point. Last question : how can I benchmark this ?


----------



## FIlIPy65 (Jul 7, 2012)

Well, I never tried, but there's how: http://fsbench.filesystems.org/

Or you can consider benchmarks done by other people: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAyNjg

Good lucky. o/


----------



## wblock@ (Jul 7, 2012)

benchmarks/bonnie++


----------



## Sebulon (Jul 7, 2012)

roelof said:
			
		

> Nobody who can tell me if ZFS can be better for me then stick with UFS.
> 
> Roelof



Ok man, chill, everyone's probably off on vacation, chuggin' as much beer as possible. Answering storage questions _may_ come secondary, haha

But yeah, considering your HW; sure- couldn't hurt at least. Just don't expect it to deliver 100% raw performance, because it was never designed that way. It will however make up for it with tons of different fun

/Sebulon


----------



## mc1 (Jul 8, 2012)

It depends on what you are looking to accomplish.  I have considered moving to ZFS and also run FreeBSD on my desktop.  I am probably going to stick with a mix of UFS and TMPFS for now.  If you are concerned mainly with performance TMPFS can make a big difference.  If you are mainly interested in redundancy, file snapshots and the end of checksumming ZFS may be a good option.  Just my thoughts.


----------



## throAU (Jul 8, 2012)

ZFS with a single disk is somewhat less useful.

The main advantages over UFS being error correction and pooled storage - which you only really see when using it on multiple disks in either a mirror or RAID-Z.

If you're not using some form of disk redundancy, ZFS is doing to be a fair bit of overhead for not many advantages.


----------



## roelof (Jul 8, 2012)

Oke 

Thanks everybody for the remarks. I will stick with UFS.

Roelof


----------



## Savagedlight (Jul 15, 2012)

throAU said:
			
		

> ZFS with a single disk is somewhat less useful.
> 
> The main advantages over UFS being error correction and pooled storage - which you only really see when using it on multiple disks in either a mirror or RAID-Z.
> 
> If you're not using some form of disk redundancy, ZFS is doing to be a fair bit of overhead for not many advantages.



ZFS will still provide all of its funky features with a single drive - naturally without tolerance for complete drive failure.
If files get irreversably corrupted on the drive, having copies>1 (such as copies=3) will likely prevent data loss.


----------

