On Monday 03 May 2010 22:34:57 Emil Mikulic wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:16:57PM -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote:
Just some random data. I know when I was reading about ZFS I did
come across some vague notion that zfs wanted the entire drive to
better deal with queueing, not sure if
On Sun, 2 May 2010, Wes Morgan wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010, Eric Damien wrote:
Hello list.
I am taking my first steps with ZFS. In the past, I used to have two UFS
slices: one dedicated to the o.s. partitions, and the second to data (/home,
etc.). I read on that it was possible to recreate
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:16:57PM -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote:
Just some random data. I know when I was reading about ZFS I did
come across some vague notion that zfs wanted the entire drive to
better deal with queueing, not sure if that was official Sun docs or
some random blog though...
Hello list.
I am taking my first steps with ZFS. In the past, I used to have two UFS
slices: one dedicated to the o.s. partitions, and the second to data (/home,
etc.). I read on that it was possible to recreate that logic with zfs, using
separate pools.
Considering the example of
On Sun, 2 May 2010, Eric Damien wrote:
Hello list.
I am taking my first steps with ZFS. In the past, I used to have two UFS
slices: one dedicated to the o.s. partitions, and the second to data (/home,
etc.). I read on that it was possible to recreate that logic with zfs, using
separate
