filesystem advice

[Pol Hallen]

Hi all and sorry for this (newbie) question.

I study FreeBSD (I come from linux) and I'm not sure which filesystem use.

My situation: install a fileserver (samba) for 3 clients and put it as
gateway/server on internet (ssh, and samba to internal lan).

I installed FreeBSD with raid 1 following this howto:

http://www.ateamsystems.com/blog/Installing-FreeBSD-9-gmirror-GPT-partitions-raid-1

everything ok!

I see that use ufs filesystem, now:

I'd like have less maintenance possible direclty to machine because this
server is far to me 50Km.

So I can use ssh for default (and extra) maintenance.

Which filesystem is "better"? After total crash of system (i.e.) or
black-out, ufs can repair it by itself? Or better use ufs+journal? or zfs?

Motherboard is atom dual core with 2Gb of ram and 2 disks with 2Gb each.

Thanks for the help!

Best regards

Pol
_______________________________________________
freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org"

[Roland Smith]

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 06:43:25PM +0200, Pol Hallen wrote:
> Hi all and sorry for this (newbie) question.
>
> I study FreeBSD (I come from linux) and I'm not sure which filesystem use.
>
> My situation: install a fileserver (samba) for 3 clients and put it as
> gateway/server on internet (ssh, and samba to internal lan).
>
> I installed FreeBSD with raid 1 following this howto:
>
> http://www.ateamsystems.com/blog/Installing-FreeBSD-9-gmirror-GPT-partitions-raid-1
>
> everything ok!
>
> I see that use ufs filesystem, now:
>
> I'd like have less maintenance possible direclty to machine because this
> server is far to me 50Km.
>
> So I can use ssh for default (and extra) maintenance.
>
> Which filesystem is "better"? After total crash of system (i.e.) or
> black-out, ufs can repair it by itself? Or better use ufs+journal? or zfs?

By default, FreeBSD 9.x uses journaled soft-updates now. This will cut down
the filesystem check time significantly. A filesystem check will require
manual intervention when some kinds of errors are found.

ZFS likes to have a lot of memory, and preferably a 64-bit machine. See the
tuning guide: https://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFSTuningGuide

> Motherboard is atom dual core with 2Gb of ram and 2 disks with 2Gb each.

Roland
--
R.F.Smith http://rsmith.home.xs4all.nl/
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725)

[krad]

There isnt really a thing as better, just different. WHich is best for you
depends on your requirements and resources.

A zfs based solution would work on that system as its just serving a few
clients, and on the assumption that they arent to demanding it should run
fine. Bunging in more memory if you can will just make things better
though, just dont expect anything to amazing out of the machine. If the
data is important then all the data integrity features of zfs will be handy.

However if you need more speed ufs will be faster on that system, at the
expense of the advanced features of zfs.


Its really down to you to decide whats more important.