S h i v wrote: > On Nov 12, 2007 7:56 PM, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 11/11/2007, Aubrey Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> hmm..., I didn't realize the footprint of zfs-based system is bigger >>> than ufs-based. >>> If it's not really doable, please ignore my requirement. >> It may be doable; I'm not qualified to say one way or another. >> However, I can tell you that zfs-based systems need more memory in >> some cases than ufs-based systems; or that they will increase the >> overall system memory pressure and create a experience that is >> different than a ufs-based system would for low memory systems. >> > > I believe zfs will also have additional demands on the cpu due to its > checksumming feature. I recall it to be single thread based, this > likely means cpu demands become visible on single cpu systems.
I believe you are speculating. In general, the ZFS checksum is far, far faster than any disk I/O. Anecdotal evidence suggests that for modern processors, the checksum is not noticeable, even for single processor systems. > Some of the parameters are tunable. Not sure about the current zfs > defaults in Indiana though. Hopefully, they are the default default. -- richard _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
