I am planning a bare metal installation of FreeBSD 12-rc3 in my desktop with 6GB DDR3 non-ECC RAM and core i3-2120 based system. My concern is in a rare case of power failure, how well UFS2 will work? Is it as easy as running fsck on an ext4 file system in Linux, for example?

ZFS is confusing for me, as a desktop user. Firstly, no ECC RAM. Since I am going to dual boot with Linux, I cannot give a whole disk to auto-create ZFS pool and related.

What will work best in my case? Will ZFS keep hard drive activity high resulting in HDD life? The author of FreeBSD books Greg Lehey hinted, he will stick with UFS2 only. Will anyone guide me, I have created free space in the hard drive. I have to use gpart to create the ZFS or UFS2 file system and manually complete the tasks. But, for an average user, is ZFS really needed? and will UFS2 fsck reliable in case of power failures.

  • 1
    UFS is a perfectly fine filesystem, but my impression is that most brainpower in the FreeBSD storage community is going to ZFS these days because it’s much more featureful and fits a lot more use cases. (If you’re just worried about ECC, please don’t be; the idea that ZFS requires it is just a frustrating rumor that simply will not die.) – Dan Dec 2 '18 at 3:46

Yes UFS can be resistant to interruptions by enabling journaling;


ZFS has some major advantages but is probably overkill for you. ( ECC is only recommended not required) it's so cool that Linux is polishing brtfs as a licence friendly, light on ram, zfs replacement. Linux can use ZFS, and Ubuntu even supports it.

If you do use ZFS make sure you disable deduplication so that it runs in a reasonable amount of RAM... you also may want to disable COW on fast changing directories (databases or logs).

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.