On Jul 30, 2014, at 4:09 PM, Espen Johansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> ZFS = FS+LVM. Its efficient in many ways. Its highly resillient to things > like silent data corruption ( disk FW bugs, power spikes). It has on the fly > checking and repair. Copy on write, snapshoting, NFSv4 native acls and a few > more nice things. I dont understand the bashing? > I swear by ZFS on my regular FreeBSD systems (though I was having trouble with it on FreeBSD/i386 latterly). I don't think there's any "bashing" of ZFS per se, just a wondering why you'd use it on a firewall appliance that's basically a nanobsd setup at heart... Cheers, Paul. > -lsf > > 30. juli 2014 21:44 skrev "Stefan Baur" <[email protected]> > følgende: > Am 30.07.2014 um 16:43 schrieb Vick Khera: > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Paul Mather <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> Personally, I think ZFS on i386 has become a losing proposition as of > >> late. I ran a ZFS-on-root FreeBSD/i386 10-STABLE system with 2 GB of > >> RAM and it appeared to become very flaky with ZFS in its latter months > >> (I eventually switched it out for a FreeBSD/amd64 system). > > > > I cannot fathom a sensible use case for using ZFS on pfSense at all. > > I'm not consciously using ZFS for anything on pfSense, I *think* I > performed the default install, but it could be using ntfs or vfat for > all that I care. ;-) So I don't know why it's trying to use that - is it > normal for a default pfSense install or not? > > I just saw the warning message and was wondering what to do about it. > > -Stefan > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
