From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Kroenert
Bottom line is that at 75 IOPS per spindle won't impress many people,
and that's the sort of rate you get when you disable the disk cache.
It's the same rate that you get
From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us]
The disk write cache helps with the step where data is
sent to the disks since it is much faster to write into the disk write
cache than to write to the media. Besides helping with unburdening
the I/O channel,
Having the disk
From: Jim Dunham [mailto:james.dun...@oracle.com]
ZFS only uses system RAM for read caching,
If your email address didn't say oracle, I'd just simply come out and say
you're crazy, but I'm trying to keep an open mind here... Correct me where
the following statement is wrong: ZFS uses
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
That's my argument, unless somebody can tell me where my logic is wrong.
Disk write cache offers zero benefit. And disk read cache only offers
benefit in unusual cases that I would call esoteric.
I was agreeing with your email until it came to
Hi,
instead of slicing and/or partitioning a drive one can also limit the
capacity the drive reports the controller and OS. This is what oem's
do to ensure that drives from different manufacturers and revisions
all have the same capacity.
Different routes need to be followed for (S)ATA and
Ed -
Simple test. Get onto a system where you *can* disable the disk cache,
disable it, and watch the carnage.
Until you do that, you can pose as many interesting theories as you like.
Bottom line is that at 75 IOPS per spindle won't impress many people,
and that's the sort of rate you get
I questioning these recommendations to increase my understanding.
--- opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: Edward Ned Harvey opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com
From: Yaverot
rpool remains 1% inuse. tank reports 100% full (with 1.44G free),
I
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Yaverot yave...@computermail.net wrote:
1. While performance isn't my top priority, doesn't using slices make a
significant difference?
Write caching will be disabled on devices that use slices. It can be
turned back on by using format -e
2. Doesn't snv_134
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Yaverot
I recommend:
When creating your new pool, use slices of the new disks, which are 99%
of
the size of the new disks instead of using the whole new disks. Because
this is a more
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Brandon High
Write caching will be disabled on devices that use slices. It can be
turned back on by using format -e
My experience has been, despite what the BPG (or whatever) says, this is
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Brandon High
Write caching will be disabled on devices that use slices. It can be
turned back on by using format -e
My experience has been, despite what the BPG
11 matches
Mail list logo
