sh == Seth Heeren s...@zfs-fuse.net writes:
sh If you don't want/need log or cache, disable these? You might
sh want to run your ZIL (slog) on ramdisk.
seems quite silly. why would you do that instead of just disabling
the ZIL? I guess it would give you a way to disable it pool-wide
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 13:49 -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
sh == Seth Heeren s...@zfs-fuse.net writes:
sh If you don't want/need log or cache, disable these? You might
sh want to run your ZIL (slog) on ramdisk.
seems quite silly. why would you do that instead of just disabling
the
On 12/11/09 14:56, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 13:49 -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
sh == Seth Heeren s...@zfs-fuse.net writes:
sh If you don't want/need log or cache, disable these? You might
sh want to run your ZIL (slog) on ramdisk.
seems quite silly. why would you
I was wondering if there were work done in the area of zfs configuration
running out of 100% SSD disks.
L2ARC and ZIL have been designed as a way to improve long seek
times/latencies of rotational disks.
now if we use only SSD (F5100 or F20) as back end drives for zfs, we should
not need those
Discussionszfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: [zfs-discuss] zfs on ssd
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
___
zfs-discuss mailing
,
selim
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
___
zfs
On 12/05/09 01:36, anu...@kqinfotech.com wrote:
Hi,
What you say is probably right with respect to L2ARC, but logging (ZIL or
database log) is required for consistency purpose.
No, the ZIL is not required for consistency. The pool is fully consistent
without
the ZIL. See
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Seth Heeren wrote:
in the same way, I guess, when running an OS on a SSD boot disk,
should we still need the same memory swapping mechanisms as we do
today, considering that in that case, the swap device is (nearly) as
fast as memory itself.
Is it? I think that when you
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
The interesting thing for the future will be non-volatile main memory,
with the primary concern being how to firewall damage due to a bug.
You would be able to turn your computer off and back on and be working
again almost instantaneously.
Some of us are old enough
On Dec 5, 2009, at 8:09 AM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
The interesting thing for the future will be non-volatile main
memory, with the primary concern being how to firewall damage due
to a bug. You would be able to turn your computer off and back on
and be working again
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Seth Heeren wrote:
in the same way, I guess, when running an OS on a SSD boot disk,
should we still need the same memory swapping mechanisms as we do
today, considering that in that case, the swap device is (nearly) as
fast as memory itself.
Is it?
Colin Raven wrote:
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 17:43, Seth Heeren s...@zfs-fuse.net
mailto:s...@zfs-fuse.net wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Seth Heeren wrote:
in the same way, I guess, when running an OS on a SSD boot disk,
should we still need the
12 matches
Mail list logo
