Originally Posted by thnewguy
I'm over simplifying a bit, but unless you have a need for large amounts of data or regular snapshots, stick with UFS. It's mature, reliable technology and uses fewer resources.
I disagree with you here. ZFS has many properties that are useful almost everywhere:
-space pooling. You can have separate filesystems for different things and you won't run into problems with one partition that was sized too small
-checksums. Much less useful w/out redundancy, but anyway it will be able to tell you when you should pull something from a backup instead of silently keeping corrupted data
-already mentioned snapshots
-no need for fsck, data is always intact
So as long as system has enough RAM, I always suggest to default to ZFS. If you don't - I don't know, I don't have experience with such cases. And the use of more resources is a good thing - because it's better to use memory for caching then let if lay waste. When applications don't need RAM, ZFS makes a good use of it, when they do - it simply gives it away.
Sometimes performance is worse than UFS and this is the second and last reason to use UFS for me. But filesystem performance is a complex matter and it's absolutely not clearly cut here.