I am using Solaris Express Community build 67 installed on a 40GB harddrive
(UFS filesystem on Solaris), dual boot with Windows XP. I have a zfsraid with 4
samsung drives. It is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 1GB RAM.
When I copy a 1.3G file from ZFSpool to ZFSpool the command time cp file
file2
Hello,
This is a third request to open the materials of the PSARC case
2007/171 ZFS Separate Intent Log
I am not sure why two previous requests were completely ignored
(even when seconded by another community member).
In any case that is absolutely unaccepted practice.
On 6/30/07, Cyril Plisko
On 7/7/07, Cyril Plisko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
This is a third request to open the materials of the PSARC case
2007/171 ZFS Separate Intent Log
I am not sure why two previous requests were completely ignored
(even when seconded by another community member).
In any case that is
On 7/7/07, Cyril Plisko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
This is a third request to open the materials of the PSARC case
2007/171 ZFS Separate Intent Log
I am not sure why two previous requests were completely ignored
(even when seconded by another community member).
In any case that is
nice idea! :)
We plan to start with the development of a fast implementation of a Burrows
Wheeler Transform based algorithm (BWT).
why not starting with lzo first - it`s already in zfs-fuse on linux and it
looks, that it`s just in between lzjb and gzip in terms of performance and
compression
When tuning recordsize for things like databases, we
try to recommend
that the customer's recordsize match the I/O size of
the database
record.
On this filesystem I have:
- file links and they are rather static
- small files ( about 8kB ) that keeps changing
- big files ( 1MB - 20 MB )
Scott Lovenberg wrote:
First Post!
Sorry, I had to get that out of the way to break the ice...
Welcome!
I was wondering if it makes sense to zone ZFS pools by disk slice, and if it
makes a difference with RAIDZ. As I'm sure we're all aware, the end of a
drive is half as fast as the
Cyril,
I wrote this case and implemented the project. My problem was
that I didn't know what policy (if any) Sun has about publishing
ARC cases, and a mail log with a gazillion email addresses.
I did receive an answer to this this in the form:
On 7/7/07, Neil Perrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cyril,
I wrote this case and implemented the project. My problem was
that I didn't know what policy (if any) Sun has about publishing
ARC cases, and a mail log with a gazillion email addresses.
I did receive an answer to this this in the form:
agreed.
while a bitwise check is the only assured way to determine duplicative nature
of two blocks, if the check were done in a streaming method as you suggest,
performance, while a huge impact compared to not, would be more than bearable
if used within an environment with large known levels
one other thing... the checksums for all files to send *could* be checked first
in batch and known unique blocks prioritized and sent first, then the possibly
duplicative data sent afterwards to be verified a dupe, thereby decreasing the
possible data loss for the backup window to levels
ZFS is a 128 bit file system. The performance on your 32-bit CPU will
not be that good. ZFS was designed for a 64-bit CPU. Another GB of RAM
might help. There are a bunch of post in the archive about 32-bit CPUs
and performance.
-Sean
Orvar Korvar wrote:
I am using Solaris Express
On Jul 7, 2007, at 06:14, Orvar Korvar wrote:
When I copy that file from ZFS to /dev/null I get this output:
real0m0.025s
user0m0.002s
sys 0m0.007s
which can't be correct. Is it wrong of me to use time cp fil fil2
when measuring disk performance?
well you're reading and writing
13 matches
Mail list logo
