Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
So does that mean ZFS is not for consumer computer? If ZFS require 4GB of Ram for operation, that means i will need 8GB+ Ram if i were to use Photoshop or any other memory intensive application? And it seems ZFS memory usage scales with the amount of HDD space? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
Edward wrote: So does that mean ZFS is not for consumer computer? Not at all. Consumer computers are plenty powerful enough to use ZFS with. If ZFS require 4GB of Ram for operation, that means i will need 8GB+ Ram if i were to use Photoshop or any other memory intensive application? ZFS doesn't require 4Gb of ram. That's merely a recommendation of the amount you might want installed in your system - a subtle difference :-) And it seems ZFS memory usage scales with the amount of HDD space? I'm not quite sure how to address this, could you re-phrase your question please? You might find this wiki page useful http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Configuration_Guide, along with the others that it points to. James C. McPherson -- Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris Sun Microsystems http://blogs.sun.com/jmcp http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
Edward wrote: So does that mean ZFS is not for consumer computer? If ZFS require 4GB of Ram for operation, that means i will need 8GB+ Ram if i were to use Photoshop or any other memory intensive application? No. It works fine on desktops - I'm writing this on an older Athlon64 with 1GB. Memory pressure does seem to become a bit more of an issue when I'm doing more I/O on the box (which, I'm assuming, is due to the various caches), so for things like compiling, I feel a little cramped. Personally, (in my experience only), I'd say that ZFS works well for use on the desktop, ASSUMING you dedicate 1GB of RAM to solely the OS (and ZFS). For very heavy I/O work, I think at least 2GB is a better idea. So, size your total memory accordingly. And it seems ZFS memory usage scales with the amount of HDD space? I think the more proper thing to say is that ZFS memory usage is relative to the amount of I/O you are doing. Very heavy I/O uses much more RAM. It is not per se connected to total size of the pool. That is, if I've got several TB of disk in a zpool, but I'm doing only 10 op/sec, it will consume much less RAM than if I have a 100GB zpool, but I'm trying to do 1000 ops/sec. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
Erik Trimble wrote: Edward wrote: So does that mean ZFS is not for consumer computer? If ZFS require 4GB of Ram for operation, that means i will need 8GB+ Ram if i were to use Photoshop or any other memory intensive application? No. It works fine on desktops - I'm writing this on an older Athlon64 with 1GB. Memory pressure does seem to become a bit more of an issue when I'm doing more I/O on the box (which, I'm assuming, is due to the various caches), so for things like compiling, I feel a little cramped. Personally, (in my experience only), I'd say that ZFS works well for use on the desktop, ASSUMING you dedicate 1GB of RAM to solely the OS (and ZFS). For very heavy I/O work, I think at least 2GB is a better idea. So, size your total memory accordingly. I've got a Dell Dimension 8400 w/ 2.5gb ram and p4 3.2Ghz processor; I haven't noticed any slow downs either. Memory is so cheap, adding an extra 2gb is only around NZ$100 these days anyway. Matthew ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Monday 23 June 2008 09:39:13 Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: Erik Trimble wrote: Edward wrote: So does that mean ZFS is not for consumer computer? If ZFS require 4GB of Ram for operation, that means i will need 8GB+ Ram if i were to use Photoshop or any other memory intensive application? No. It works fine on desktops - I'm writing this on an older Athlon64 with 1GB. Memory pressure does seem to become a bit more of an issue when I'm doing more I/O on the box (which, I'm assuming, is due to the various caches), so for things like compiling, I feel a little cramped. Personally, (in my experience only), I'd say that ZFS works well for use on the desktop, ASSUMING you dedicate 1GB of RAM to solely the OS (and ZFS). For very heavy I/O work, I think at least 2GB is a better idea. So, size your total memory accordingly. I've got a Dell Dimension 8400 w/ 2.5gb ram and p4 3.2Ghz processor; I haven't noticed any slow downs either. Memory is so cheap, adding an extra 2gb is only around NZ$100 these days anyway. Matthew this is the kind of reasoning that hides problems rather than correcting them. Sooner or later problems will show up in other - maybe worse - forms ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
No, ZFS loves memory and unlike most other FS's around it can make good use of memory. But ZFS will free memory if it recognizes that other apps require memory or you can limit the cache ARC will be using. To my experiance ZFS still performs nicely on 1 GB boxes. PS: How much 4 GB Ram costs for a desktop ? Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212335 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Edward Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:32 AM To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog So does that mean ZFS is not for consumer computer? If ZFS require 4GB of Ram for operation, that means i will need 8GB+ Ram if i were to use Photoshop or any other memory intensive application? And it seems ZFS memory usage scales with the amount of HDD space? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On 6/23/08 6:24 AM, Mertol Ozyoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, ZFS loves memory and unlike most other FS's around it can make good use of memory. But ZFS will free memory if it recognizes that other apps require memory or you can limit the cache ARC will be using. This is an important distinction. There are many examples of software which does not utilize the resources we make available. I'm happy with code that takes advantage of these additional resources to improve performance. Otherwise, it becomes difficult to make cost/benefit decisions. I need more performance. It's worth $x to get that. To my experiance ZFS still performs nicely on 1 GB boxes. This is probably fine for the typical consumer usage pattern. PS: How much 4 GB Ram costs for a desktop ? I just bought 2GB DIMMs for $40. IIRC, they were Kingston, so not a no-name brand. Charles ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
Yes you are all correct. Ram cost nothing today, even though it might be bouncing back to their normal margin. DDR2 Ram are relatively cheap. Not to mention DDR3 will bring us double or more memory capacity. Most people could afford 4GB Ram on their Desktop today. With 8GB Ram for Prosumers. At todays price i reckon ALL systems, even entry level should have 2GB Ram Standard. But the sad thing is Windows XP / Vista is still 32Bit. It doesn't recognize more then 3.x GB of Ram. 64Bit version is still premature and hardly OEM are adopting it. Hardware makers have yet to full jump on broad for 64 bit drivers. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Edward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes you are all correct. Ram cost nothing today, even though it might be bouncing back to their normal margin. DDR2 Ram are relatively cheap. Not to mention DDR3 will bring us double or more memory capacity. Not likely. Their *normal margins* were because of their collusion. The anti-trust lawsuit, and subsequent multi-billion dollar settlement assured we won't be seeing that again anytime soon. Most people could afford 4GB Ram on their Desktop today. With 8GB Ram for Prosumers. At todays price i reckon ALL systems, even entry level should have 2GB Ram Standard. And most vista systems do. OEM's slowly learned their lesson. But the sad thing is Windows XP / Vista is still 32Bit. It doesn't recognize more then 3.x GB of Ram. 64Bit version is still premature and hardly OEM are adopting it. Hardware makers have yet to full jump on broad for 64 bit drivers. false, both of them recognize well in excess of 4GB of ram. What they CAN'T do is address it for *ONE* process. That's why applications like oracle were quick to hop on the 64bit bandwagon, they actually need it. I don't know of too many consumer level apps besides maybe photoshop (and firefox ;) ) that come anywhere near 4GB ram usage. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On 6/23/08 11:59 AM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Edward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the sad thing is Windows XP / Vista is still 32Bit. It doesn't recognize more then 3.x GB of Ram. 64Bit version is still premature and hardly OEM are adopting it. Hardware makers have yet to full jump on broad for 64 bit drivers. false, both of them recognize well in excess of 4GB of ram. What they CAN'T do is address it for *ONE* process. That's why applications like oracle were quick to hop on the 64bit bandwagon, they actually need it. I don't know of too many consumer level apps besides maybe photoshop (and firefox ;) ) that come anywhere near 4GB ram usage. While Edward is technically incorrect, the ceiling is still 4GB total physical memory: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx Note that even though A 25% higher RAM ceiling is one thing, but it's a far cry from the 64-128GB the enterprise target Windows versions can use (yes, some of them are 32-bit but if you pay the extra $, you are allowed to use more RAM). The 3GB per-process limit is the real factor. But then again, who runs Oracle on Windows? :) Charles (ok, I have, but only for testing) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charles Soto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/23/08 11:59 AM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Edward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the sad thing is Windows XP / Vista is still 32Bit. It doesn't recognize more then 3.x GB of Ram. 64Bit version is still premature and hardly OEM are adopting it. Hardware makers have yet to full jump on broad for 64 bit drivers. false, both of them recognize well in excess of 4GB of ram. What they CAN'T do is address it for *ONE* process. That's why applications like oracle were quick to hop on the 64bit bandwagon, they actually need it. I don't know of too many consumer level apps besides maybe photoshop (and firefox ;) ) that come anywhere near 4GB ram usage. While Edward is technically incorrect, the ceiling is still 4GB total physical memory: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx Note that even though A 25% higher RAM ceiling is one thing, but it's a far cry from the 64-128GB the enterprise target Windows versions can use (yes, some of them are 32-bit but if you pay the extra $, you are allowed to use more RAM). The 3GB per-process limit is the real factor. But then again, who runs Oracle on Windows? :) Charles (ok, I have, but only for testing) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss Read the fine print: Limits on physical memory for 32-bit platforms also depend on the Physical Address Extensionhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796%28VS.85%29.aspx(PAE), which allows 32-bit Windows systems to use more than 4 GB of physical memory. PAE is enabled by default on XP after SP1, and all builds of vista. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 03:16:45PM -0400, Brian H. Nelson wrote: Limits on physical memory for 32-bit platforms also depend on the Physical Address Extension http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796%28VS.85%29.aspx (PAE), which allows 32-bit Windows systems to use more than 4 GB of physical memory. PAE is enabled by default on XP after SP1, and all builds of vista. Read the regular-sized print in the XP and Vista tables: Under Windows, the 4GB limit is a LICENSING limit, not a problem of addressability, PAE or otherwise. The 4GB limit is also in place for 32-bit Windows Server Standard editions. If you want to be able to use more memory, you need to pay more money (as Charles already stated). Regardless of licensing issues, PAE is an ugly hack and shouldn't be used it at all possible. ;) -brian -- Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix. -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
Brian Hechinger wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 03:16:45PM -0400, Brian H. Nelson wrote: Limits on physical memory for 32-bit platforms also depend on the Physical Address Extension http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796%28VS.85%29.aspx (PAE), which allows 32-bit Windows systems to use more than 4 GB of physical memory. PAE is enabled by default on XP after SP1, and all builds of vista. Read the regular-sized print in the XP and Vista tables: Under Windows, the 4GB limit is a LICENSING limit, not a problem of addressability, PAE or otherwise. The 4GB limit is also in place for 32-bit Windows Server Standard editions. If you want to be able to use more memory, you need to pay more money (as Charles already stated). Regardless of licensing issues, PAE is an ugly hack and shouldn't be used it at all possible. ;) -brian But, but, but, PAE works so nice on my Solaris 8 x86 boxes for massive /tmp. :-) To be even more pedantic about XP, here's the FINAL word from microsoft about the PAE and 2+ GB RAM support: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms791485.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx Bottom line: Windows XP (any SP) supports a MAXIMUM of 4GB of ram, regardless of the various switches. This is a CODE limit, not a license limit. While there are a bunch of APIs which are nominally available under XP for use of 4+GB address spaces, the OS kernel itself it limited to 4GB of physical RAM. Back on topic: the one thing I haven't tried out is ZFS on a 32-bit-only system with PAE, and more than 4GB of RAM. Anyone? -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 01:36:53PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote: But, but, but, PAE works so nice on my Solaris 8 x86 boxes for massive /tmp. :-) What CPU? If it's a 64-bit CPU, you don't need PAE. ;) Back on topic: the one thing I haven't tried out is ZFS on a 32-bit-only system with PAE, and more than 4GB of RAM. Anyone? Probably poorly. ZFS needs address space, which is lacking in a 32-bit kernel. -brian -- Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix. -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
For the server Enterprise target, memory is secondary? Running a company well, and RAM cost is secondary? For the Enterprise target market, RAM shouldnt be an issue. For the consumer market, RAM should be an issue. But ZFS is not targeted for consumer market. Yet? ZFS is still being polished for Enterprise. And when ZFS is more polished, the memory requirements can be worked on. But for now, all ZFS customers are running servers on SUN machine for thousands of dollars. RAM is secondary to them. Or, it SHOULD be secondary for a server. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
Tim wrote: I guess I find it ridiculous you're complaining about ram when I can purchase 4gb for under 50 dollars on a desktop. For many people around the world US$50 is a very significant amount of money. That also assumes the have the money to buy (or have already done so) a motherboard that will take 4G of RAM. What if they have a laptop, even one that isn't that old (say 3 years) it probably can't take that amount of memory. Just because US$50 doesn't seem a lot to you it is to some people. I have a quite old machine with an AMD Athlon 900MHz with 640Mb of RAM serving up NFS, WebDAV locally to my house and running my webserver (Apache) in a Zone. For me performance is perfectly acceptable, but this isn't an interactive desktop. Not only is performance acceptable when I moved all the data (photos, etc) off the internal disk of my (PPC) Mac Mini to the NFSv3 accessed ZFS system things on the mac actually got faster. But surely I could afford to by a machine with 4gb of RAM after all it is only US$50 right ? Yes I could but why should I need to buy more hardware when I can use what I already have and not fill up more land file with non RoHS components (most of this machine, everything other than the CPU fan is more than 5 years old). -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:33 AM, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim wrote: I guess I find it ridiculous you're complaining about ram when I can purchase 4gb for under 50 dollars on a desktop. For many people around the world US$50 is a very significant amount of money. That also assumes the have the money to buy (or have already done so) a motherboard that will take 4G of RAM. What if they have a laptop, even one that isn't that old (say 3 years) it probably can't take that amount of memory. Just because US$50 doesn't seem a lot to you it is to some people. I have a quite old machine with an AMD Athlon 900MHz with 640Mb of RAM serving up NFS, WebDAV locally to my house and running my webserver (Apache) in a Zone. For me performance is perfectly acceptable, but this isn't an interactive desktop. Not only is performance acceptable when I moved all the data (photos, etc) off the internal disk of my (PPC) Mac Mini to the NFSv3 accessed ZFS system things on the mac actually got faster. But surely I could afford to by a machine with 4gb of RAM after all it is only US$50 right ? Yes I could but why should I need to buy more hardware when I can use what I already have and not fill up more land file with non RoHS components (most of this machine, everything other than the CPU fan is more than 5 years old). -- Darren J Moffat GREAT point. Sun shouldn't innovate in software if it doesn't run well on hardware that should've been thrown away years ago. Next on my list of complaints: VMWare should stop writing ESX, I can't virtualize 64bit os's on my Pentium2. Oracle needs to entirely step out of the DB game. My ultrasparc II is having troubles running 11g with 10,000 users. Sun needs to scrap xVM as well as zfs because I can't get 10 instances of windows running on this blazing fast Duron. ID software shouldn't write another version of Doom if it isn't' going to run at 120fps on my TNT2. Quite honestly if $50 is a lot of money for you, you shouldn't be complaining about the performance of ANYTHING. If all you're looking for is performance, load DSL and wander away. I don't know ANYONE running around claiming Solaris is the OS to beat on extremely slow hardware with extremely minimal hardware specs. That isn't its target market and never will be. THIS IS AN ENTERPRISE OS! I don't expect the programmers at Sun or anywhere else to write their code for hardware that's 10 years old, or stifle innovation based on that idea. If that's the sort of project you're looking for I think you've stumbled onto the wrong mailing list. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
I have a quite old machine with an AMD Athlon 900MHz with 640Mb of RAM serving up NFS, WebDAV locally to my house and running my webserver (Apache) in a Zone. For me performance is perfectly acceptable, but this isn't an interactive desktop. Not only is performance acceptable when I moved all the data (photos, etc) off the internal disk of my (PPC) Mac Mini to the NFSv3 accessed ZFS system things on the mac actually got faster. But surely I could afford to by a machine with 4gb of RAM after all it is only US$50 right ? Yes I could but why should I need to buy more hardware when I can use what I already have and not fill up more land file with non RoHS components (most of this machine, everything other than the CPU fan is more than 5 years old). GREAT point. Sun shouldn't innovate in software if it doesn't run well on hardware that should've been thrown away years ago. You are comparing apples with oranges here. The point is not to change software to accommodate obsolete hardware. The point is to optimize existing hardware and modern software. The money is better spent on more RAM than on another CPU/SATA HBA/whatever, in this particular use case. I don't know ANYONE running around claiming Solaris is the OS to beat on extremely slow hardware with extremely minimal hardware specs. That isn't its target market and never will be. THIS IS AN ENTERPRISE OS! Wrong. OpenSolaris is certainly not an Enterprise OS. It might become one when it is passed the torch from Solaris 10. I don't expect the programmers at Sun or anywhere else to write their code for hardware that's 10 years old, or stifle innovation based on that idea. If that's the sort of project you're looking for I think you've stumbled onto the wrong mailing list. I think you just have made a fool of yourself. :-) Regards -- Volker -- Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris Brandt Brandt Computer GmbH WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/ Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513 Schuhgröße: 45 Geschäftsführer: Rainer J. H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Volker A. Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a quite old machine with an AMD Athlon 900MHz with 640Mb of RAM serving up NFS, WebDAV locally to my house and running my webserver (Apache) in a Zone. For me performance is perfectly acceptable, but this isn't an interactive desktop. Not only is performance acceptable when I moved all the data (photos, etc) off the internal disk of my (PPC) Mac Mini to the NFSv3 accessed ZFS system things on the mac actually got faster. But surely I could afford to by a machine with 4gb of RAM after all it is only US$50 right ? Yes I could but why should I need to buy more hardware when I can use what I already have and not fill up more land file with non RoHS components (most of this machine, everything other than the CPU fan is more than 5 years old). GREAT point. Sun shouldn't innovate in software if it doesn't run well on hardware that should've been thrown away years ago. You are comparing apples with oranges here. The point is not to change software to accommodate obsolete hardware. The point is to optimize existing hardware and modern software. The money is better spent on more RAM than on another CPU/SATA HBA/whatever, in this particular use case. You apparently didn't read the post I was responding to then. He's talking about someone unable to afford $50, and 8+ year old cpu's and motherboards. That is most definitely obsolete hardware. I don't know ANYONE running around claiming Solaris is the OS to beat on extremely slow hardware with extremely minimal hardware specs. That isn't its target market and never will be. THIS IS AN ENTERPRISE OS! Wrong. OpenSolaris is certainly not an Enterprise OS. It might become one when it is passed the torch from Solaris 10. SOLARIS is an enterprise operating system. OpenSolaris is the testbed for Solaris. If you're going to sit there with a straight face and try to argue with me that OpenSolaris is not geared toward the enterprise, this discussion is a lost cause. Crossbow, honeycomb, COMSTAR, HA Clusters... those are most definitely projects aimed at your average home user. I don't expect the programmers at Sun or anywhere else to write their code for hardware that's 10 years old, or stifle innovation based on that idea. If that's the sort of project you're looking for I think you've stumbled onto the wrong mailing list. I think you just have made a fool of yourself. :-) I think you've just done the same. You either didn't read the previous post, or entirely failed to understand what I was saying. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes running nv90 - one on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. (SunBlade 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.) The zfs root box is significantly slower all around. Not only is initial I/O slower, but it seems much less able to cache data. Exactly the same here, though with different hardware (Netra T1 200 with 1 GB RAM and 2x 36 GB SCSI). If you put the UFS on top of an SVM mirror the difference is less noticeable but still there. I think that if you notice the common thread; those who run SPARC's are having performance issues vs. those who are running x86. I know from my experience, I have a P4 3.2Ghz prescott desktop with 2.5gb ram, and a Lenovo t61p laptop with 4gb, both of them have no performance issues with zfs; infact, with zfs, the performance has gone up. Matthew ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes running nv90 - one on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. (SunBlade 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.) The zfs root box is significantly slower all around. Not only is initial I/O slower, but it seems much less able to cache data. Exactly the same here, though with different hardware (Netra T1 200 with 1 GB RAM and 2x 36 GB SCSI). If you put the UFS on top of an SVM mirror the difference is less noticeable but still there. I think that if you notice the common thread; those who run SPARC's are having performance issues vs. those who are running x86. I know from my experience, I have a P4 3.2Ghz prescott desktop with 2.5gb ram, and a Lenovo t61p laptop with 4gb, both of them have no performance issues with zfs; infact, with zfs, the performance has gone up. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that if you notice the common thread; those who run SPARC's are having performance issues vs. those who are running x86. Not that simple. I'm seeing performance issues on x86 just as much as sparc. My sparc comparison was simply that the only pair of identical machines I could do testing on just happened to be sparc. The *real* common thread is that you need ridiculous amounts of memory to get decent performance out of ZFS, whereas UFS gives reasonable performance on much smaller systems. On my servers where 16G minimum is reasonable, ZFS is fine. But the bulk of the installed base of machines accessed by users is still in the 512M-1G range - and Sun are still selling 512M machines. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:21:26 +0100 Peter Tribble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The *real* common thread is that you need ridiculous amounts of memory to get decent performance out of ZFS That's FUD. Older systems might not have enough memory, but newer ones can't hardly be bought with less then 2Gb. Read the specs before you write such nonsense about ridiculous memory amounts. bulk of the installed base of machines accessed by users is still in the 512M-1G range True, buth those systems don't qualify for Vista nor for OpenSolaris, nor for a good ZFS based system. That's normal. Those machines are old. Not too old for ancient filesystems and lightweight desktops, but the -are- too old for modern software. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv90 ++ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:20 PM, dick hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:21:26 +0100 Peter Tribble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The *real* common thread is that you need ridiculous amounts of memory to get decent performance out of ZFS That's FUD. Older systems might not have enough memory, but newer ones can't hardly be bought with less then 2Gb. Read the specs before you write such nonsense about ridiculous memory amounts. Hogwash. What is the reasonable minimum? I'm suspecting it's well over 2G. And as for being unable to get machines with less than 2G, just look at Sun's price list - plenty of 1G, and the X2100, Ultra 20, and Ultra 24 all come in 512M configurations. Yes, it's not very smart, but it doesn't just set the target range now but for the working lifetime of the machines, which is at least 3 years. bulk of the installed base of machines accessed by users is still in the 512M-1G range True, buth those systems don't qualify for Vista nor for OpenSolaris, nor for a good ZFS based system. That's normal. Those machines are old. Not too old for ancient filesystems and lightweight desktops, but the -are- too old for modern software. So you're saying that if people want to even try OpenSolaris then they need to throw away their perfectly functional hardware and buy something new? Hardly a strategy for success. 1G is more than enough to run a modern desktop (although heavier use and more apps will drive the requirement up beyond that). (And it's not just a case of looking at the memory in the hardware - as virtualization becomes more and more widely used that memory allocation gets split up into smaller chunks that get allocated to virtual systems.) -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:04:47 +0100 Peter Tribble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hogwash. What is the reasonable minimum? I'm suspecting it's well over 2G. 2Gb is perfectly alright. And as for being unable to get machines with less than 2G, just look at Sun's price list I'm not saying you can't buy machines w/ 512mb-1gb. I'm saying that the majority of computers offered in stores comes w/ a minimum of 2Gb. At least in the Netherlands. So you're saying that if people want to even try OpenSolaris then they need to throw away their perfectly functional hardware and buy something new? 512mb is the bare minimum for OpenSolaris. Take it or leave it. That doesn't mean people have to throw their machines away. They could try to add ram. I -do- say that 512mb ram is stone age. 1G is more than enough to run a modern desktop (although heavier use and more apps will drive the requirement up beyond that). 1Gb is minimum for a modern desktop and a few apps like the Gimp / OpenOffice. That leaves hardly some room for modern filesystems, nor does it leave room for virtualization. (And it's not just a case of looking at the memory in the hardware - as virtualization becomes more and more widely used that memory allocation gets split up into smaller chunks that get allocated to virtual systems.) That's why a modern machine needs at least 2GB ram. That way you can have a modern desktop; a modern FS like ZFS and one xVM. Below that all you have is a modern desktop. No room to play with the modern goodies like xVM / ZFS Given the fact that 2GB sales for about 30 euro, that's cheap. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv90 ++ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
| I guess I find it ridiculous you're complaining about ram when I can | purchase 4gb for under 50 dollars on a desktop. | | Its not like were talking about a 500 dollar purchase. 'On a desktop' is an important qualification here. Server RAM is more expensive, and then you get to multiply it by the number of servers you are buying. It does add up. - cks ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
Remind me again what a veritas license is. If you can't find ram for less than that you need to find a new var/disti On 6/16/08, Chris Siebenmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | I guess I find it ridiculous you're complaining about ram when I can | purchase 4gb for under 50 dollars on a desktop. | | Its not like were talking about a 500 dollar purchase. 'On a desktop' is an important qualification here. Server RAM is more expensive, and then you get to multiply it by the number of servers you are buying. It does add up. - cks ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here I made the opposite observation: Just installed nv90 to a dated notebook DELL D400; unmodified except of a 80GB 2.5 hard disk and - of course ! - an extra strip of 1 GB of RAM; making it 1.2 GB altogether. Now, first I installed UFS; then wiped everything to install the full ZFS-beauty. And I can't say that there was a noticeable difference between the two in respect to subjective speed behaviour. I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes running nv90 - one on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. (SunBlade 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.) The zfs root box is significantly slower all around. Not only is initial I/O slower, but it seems much less able to cache data. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes running nv90 - one on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. (SunBlade 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.) The zfs root box is significantly slower all around. Not only is initial I/O slower, but it seems much less able to cache data. Exactly the same here, though with different hardware (Netra T1 200 with 1 GB RAM and 2x 36 GB SCSI). If you put the UFS on top of an SVM mirror the difference is less noticeable but still there. -- Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris Brandt Brandt Computer GmbH WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/ Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513 Schuhgröße: 45 Geschäftsführer: Rainer J. H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Volker A. Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes running nv90 - one on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. (SunBlade 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.) Exactly the same here, though with different hardware (Netra T1 200 with 1 GB RAM and 2x 36 GB SCSI). If you put the UFS on top of an SVM mirror the difference is less noticeable but still there. I never thought I'd say this, but 1GB of memory is pretty low-end. (Heck, even my laptop has more than that!) I'm not suggesting that you upgrade, but it could explain things a little. How much of the memory is in use, and how much of that is used by the ARC cache? -B -- Brandon High [EMAIL PROTECTED] The good is the enemy of the best. - Nietzsche ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
Peter Tribble wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here I made the opposite observation: Just installed nv90 to a dated
notebook DELL D400; unmodified except of a 80GB 2.5 hard disk and -
of course ! - an extra strip of 1 GB of RAM; making it 1.2 GB
altogether.
Now, first I installed UFS; then wiped everything to install the full
ZFS-beauty. And I can't say that there was a noticeable difference
between the two in respect to subjective speed behaviour.
I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes running nv90 - one
on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. (SunBlade
150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.)
The zfs root box is significantly slower all around. Not only is
initial I/O slower, but it seems much less able to cache data.
Mine was just a rough observation, and I can't give you numbers.
Probably it is not characteristic, since it doesn't serve any data
('desktop on notebook'), and the bottleneck could be elsewhere (Centrino
1.4). The ZFS on there is close to Ubuntu (it is a quadro-boot on that
drive) in its responsiveness, the system load with a Firefox window and
abiword is something of 0.2. Caching is probably not critical here.
Uwe
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
Hmm...my SB2K, 2GB RAM, 2x 1050MHz UltraSPARC III Cu CPU, seems to freeze momentarily for a couple of seconds every now and then in a zfs root setup on snv_90, which it never did with mostly ufs on snv_81; that despite having much faster disks now (LSI SAS 3800X and a pair of Seagate 1TB SAS drives (mirrored), vs the 2x internal 73GB FC drives; the SAS drives, at a mere 7200 RPM can sustain a sequential transfer rate about 2.5x that of the 10KRPM FC drives!). Then again, between the hardware differences and any other software differences as well as the configuration change, I'm not absolutely ready to blame any particular one of those for those annoying pauses...but my suspicions are on zfs... This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 02:40:34AM -0700, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: the SAS drives, at a mere 7200 RPM can sustain a sequential transfer rate about 2.5x that of the 10KRPM FC drives!). I think that't my favorite part about these new high density drives. Don't get me wrong, a TB (or more!) in a single 3.5 drive is an amazing thing, but even moreso is the ability to have a higher transfer rate. What works out even better is the fact that unlike most other filesystems, I think ZFS can really take advantage of that. I was doing so heavy read/write activity on my colo-ed box, and it's neat to watch 'zpool iostat' since it was reading at a constant rate but the write would wait for the txg and so there would be no write activity and then full blast for a second. That's just a perfect combination of technologies. Now to get that box upgraded to snv90 or better. ;) -brian -- Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix. -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: Hmm...my SB2K, 2GB RAM, 2x 1050MHz UltraSPARC III Cu CPU, seems to freeze momentarily for a couple of seconds every now and then in a zfs root setup on snv_90, which it never did with mostly ufs on snv_81; that despite having much faster disks now (LSI SAS 3800X and a pair of Seagate 1TB SAS drives (mirrored), vs the 2x internal 73GB FC drives; the SAS drives, at a mere 7200 RPM can sustain a sequential transfer rate about 2.5x that of the 10KRPM FC drives!). Did you enable compression in the filesystem? Do the freezes occur while writing files at high rates? I have tested zfs compression here on a Solaris 10U4 system and notice that when data is written at a high rate, the user interface tends to become quite jerky. It seems that compression is best reserved for read-mostly filesystems and not for working data. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
It might just be me, and the 'feel' of it, but it still feels to me that the system needs to be under more memory pressure before ZFS gives pages back. This could also be because I'm typically using systems with either 128GB, or = 4GB of RAM, and in the smaller case, not having some headroom costs me... I can confirm this feeling. I have several older systems which used to have UFS and now run using ZFS, and the effect is noticeable. I have never gotten around to doing any benchmarks, but as a rule of thumb any box under 2GB RAM is not really good for ZFS. Regards -- Volker -- Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris Brandt Brandt Computer GmbH WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/ Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513 Schuhgröße: 45 Geschäftsführer: Rainer J. H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On 6/10/08, Volker A. Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It might just be me, and the 'feel' of it, but it still feels to me that the system needs to be under more memory pressure before ZFS gives pages back. This could also be because I'm typically using systems with either 128GB, or = 4GB of RAM, and in the smaller case, not having some headroom costs me... I can confirm this feeling. I have several older systems which used to have UFS and now run using ZFS, and the effect is noticeable. I have never gotten around to doing any benchmarks, but as a rule of thumb any box under 2GB RAM is not really good for ZFS. Here I made the opposite observation: Just installed nv90 to a dated notebook DELL D400; unmodified except of a 80GB 2.5 hard disk and - of course ! - an extra strip of 1 GB of RAM; making it 1.2 GB altogether. Now, first I installed UFS; then wiped everything to install the full ZFS-beauty. And I can't say that there was a noticeable difference between the two in respect to subjective speed behaviour. Uwe Regards -- Volker -- Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris Brandt Brandt Computer GmbH WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/ Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513 Schuhgröße: 45 Geschäftsführer: Rainer J. H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Dick Hoogendijk wrote: ZFS is called crap by FreeBSD people, because of the great memory hog and high CPU usage. I know it zfs uses more memory the a UFS system, but can somebody give some hints about how much the difference is? I don't see any high CPU usage here. The ARC cache grows based on current I/O activity (and can grow quite large) but can be tuned down (at least in Solaris) if necessary. As far as the memory consumed by ZFS vs UFS it is pretty difficult to tell since UFS can be quite aggressive at caching as well. The UFS caching is often hidden by system tools and reported as unused memory. ZFS definitely prefers a 64-bit kernel. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Nathan Kroenert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To add to that, it would seem that UFS is more likely to 'give pages back' before things to to crap and system performance tanks versus ZFS. There were some write throttling changes in recent builds that were meant to address the performance problems that can be caused by the ARC cache. Limiting the cache size can also help, but shouldn't be needed in recent builds. I'm not sure if the write throttling has been put back to Solaris 10u5 or if it's scheduled for 10u6 though. -B -- Brandon High [EMAIL PROTECTED] The good is the enemy of the best. - Nietzsche ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
