Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-17-2010, 02:28 PM
sysman sysman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 19
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Red face ZFS as root fs
Hi guys, is it reasonable choice use ZFS as a root fs as well? What is the best fs choice for freebsd considering laptop user as well?

Thanks
SYS
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-17-2010, 02:58 PM
kmoore134's Avatar
kmoore134 kmoore134 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 2,568
Thanks: 0
Thanked 163 Times in 127 Posts
Default ZFS as root fs
Strong Points:
* No fsck to scan after a crash
* Lots of cool features, mirroring, raidz, compression, etc

Weak Points:
* Requires lots of RAM, 4GB+ easily
* Needs to be on 64bit, otherwise easy to crash with large file manipulation
* Slower than UFS
__________________
----
Kris Moore
PC-BSD Founder
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-24-2011, 01:33 PM
gour gour is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hlapičina (Croatia)
Posts: 136
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by kmoore134 View Post
Weak Points:
* Requires lots of RAM, 4GB+ easily
* Needs to be on 64bit, otherwise easy to crash with large file manipulation
* Slower than UFS
Atm, i use Archlinux which runs on x86_64 system with ext4 fs with 2 hard disks working in raid-1 array under lvm2. Machine has 8GB of RAM (i7 cpu).

My primary concern of possible move to (PC)BSD is not to squeeze the last drop of performance (I do not overlock my machine), but would like to have stability & safety for my data with possibly less time spending tweaking/fixing/maintaining OS.

Do you in that case recommend ZFS over UFS+SUJ?

Does deploying ZFS means the whole system is under one / partition (is it recommended)?

(In Linux atm I have / & /home on separate 'partitions').
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-24-2011, 01:56 PM
kmoore134's Avatar
kmoore134 kmoore134 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 2,568
Thanks: 0
Thanked 163 Times in 127 Posts
Default ZFS as root fs
If the speed / memory requirements don't concern you, then I would go
with ZFS.

You'll want to let it setup a single ZFS partition, and within that it
created mount-points for /, /usr and such, each which are able to use
their own options. But the nice thing is you can play around with the
"zpool" command post-install and add new disks to your existing pool, in
mirror mode or otherwise, extend the pool size and much more
__________________
----
Kris Moore
PC-BSD Founder
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-24-2011, 02:27 PM
gour gour is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hlapičina (Croatia)
Posts: 136
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by kmoore134 View Post
If the speed / memory requirements don't concern you, then I would go with ZFS.
Thanks.

Quote:
You'll want to let it setup a single ZFS partition, and within that it
created mount-points for /, /usr and such, each which are able to use
their own options.
What about /home?

In this article it is written:

Quote:
...Keep in mind that if you create a separate mount point for /home, you will be putting it outside PC-BSD’s jail system...
What does it mean, iow. is /home mount point recommended or not in (PC)BSD and ZFS setup?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-24-2011, 02:35 PM
kmoore134's Avatar
kmoore134 kmoore134 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 2,568
Thanks: 0
Thanked 163 Times in 127 Posts
Default ZFS as root fs
By default /home is just a sym-link to /usr/home. So in this case if
your zpool contains /usr, it'll have your home stuff as well.

If you want to encrypt, I recommend just picking the option to enable
encryption, and select ZFS as the file-system type. This way your entire
zpool will end up encrypted, and you'll have a small 500MB /boot UFS
partition.
__________________
----
Kris Moore
PC-BSD Founder
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-24-2011, 03:02 PM
gour gour is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hlapičina (Croatia)
Posts: 136
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by kmoore134 View Post
By default /home is just a sym-link to /usr/home. So in this case if your zpool contains /usr, it'll have your home stuff as well.
Thank you very much for explanation. This is one of the BSD-isms I haven't picked up (yet)

Quote:
If you want to encrypt, I recommend just picking the option to enable
encryption, and select ZFS as the file-system type. This way your entire
zpool will end up encrypted, and you'll have a small 500MB /boot UFS
partition.
Very nice....Yeah, I believe that using encryption is not bad...

Today I've tried to install (under vbox) DragonFlyBSD (hammer fs looks interesting), but it didn't work.

It seems I'll focus on PCBSD in my exploration of BSD-land.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-05-2011, 07:41 AM
gour gour is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hlapičina (Croatia)
Posts: 136
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by kmoore134 View Post
You'll want to let it setup a single ZFS partition, and within that it created mount-points for /, /usr and such, each which are able to use
their own options. But the nice thing is you can play around with the
"zpool" command post-install and add new disks to your existing pool, in
mirror mode or otherwise, extend the pool size and much more

OK, I'm almost ready to try installing latest 9.0 snapshot on my desktop machine (laptop already running it with Xfce) and thereby completely migrate from Linux to PCBSD.

Now, the question is whether installer is capable to put 2 hardisks, containing single ZFS partition, in a mirror or I'm supposed to install on one disk and then, post-install, add new disk to the pool in mirror mode?

I assume, it's still healthy to have smaller separate /boot partition on each disk using UFS (plain UFS or UFS+SUJ?)?

On linux, whole disk is in the array, but I've /boot as ext3 fs, while the rest is ext4.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-05-2011, 07:44 AM
gour gour is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hlapičina (Croatia)
Posts: 136
Thanks: 4
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Default
Originally Posted by kmoore134 View Post
If you want to encrypt, I recommend just picking the option to enable encryption, and select ZFS as the file-system type. This way your entire zpool will end up encrypted, and you'll have a small 500MB /boot UFS partition.

In this case, where is the encryption key stored?

I also do not understand, how will be this 500MB /boot partition creted?

Automatically by installer?

Please, excuse me for (possibly) dumb questions, but ZFS is new beast for me and I'd like to start with correct setup...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-06-2011, 01:37 AM
Skull Fire Skull Fire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 218
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default
if you want to live on the bloody, broken edge, then please continue with 9.0 on raid.

i probably would not use raid with 8.2, using it with 9.0 is clearly insanity,.

9.0 is testing. . .usable, maybe. unstable. . .deffinatly. you will no doubt have a broken system before 9.0 is fully released. really dont kill yourself using raid with 9.0. install it on 1 partition of 1 hard drive and use it to check out new and interesting things. . ., but really, dont commit to full on everyday use without expecting a failure or something broken before its released officially.

if your idea is to test raid on 9.0, than disregard my previous comments
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright 2005-2010, The PC-BSD Project. PC-BSD and the PC-BSD logo are registered trademarks of iXsystems.
All other content is freely available for sharing under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.