On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Kaya Saman <samank...@netscape.net> wrote:
> I know how strong UFS v.1 is as I use it with Solaris 9, but how about UFS > v.2 which is what FreeBSD runs?? When compared with ext3 from a > performance/reliability perspective which one comes on top? > I would say ufs2 easily wins, but remember this is the freebsd-questions list ;) There are some differences though, ufs2 uses softupdates, not journaling(journaling is available and easy to implement via gjournal). Softupdates I believe are a little faster than journaling, but it's drawback is long disk checking after a dirty shutdown. I've never had a ufs specific issue in hundreds if not thousands of deployments, but nothing is guaranteed. ufs does have a great track records and bunch of service hours logged. > > Also if something goes wrong with the filesystem what are the tools to > check the drive and repair errors as in Linux I use e2fsck followed by > device ID. > Example after a dirty shutdown: fsck -y > In fact I am only really after ZFS for its self healing properties as I > don't mind going with any file system as long as it's stable. Ext3 although > easily repairable is quite unstable on my systems anyway! That's actually a bit disconcerting, do you have hardware instability? -- Adam Vande More _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
