Storage question

[Paul Kraus]

On Sep 9, 2015, at 1:24, William A. Mahaffey III <wam at hiwaay.net> 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 kraus-haus.org