On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:51 AM, james wrote:
> On 28/01/2013 16:10, Paul Kraus wrote:
>
>> I have been using ZFS with GPT partitions with no issues. I have
>> NOT compared performance between whole disk and partitioned, which is where
>> the difference in Solaris arises (ZFS makes better
On 28/01/2013 16:10, Paul Kraus wrote:
I have been using ZFS with GPT partitions with no issues. I have NOT
compared performance between whole disk and partitioned, which is where the
difference in Solaris arises (ZFS makes better use of the physical drive's
write cache).
Well, it is
On Jan 29, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
>>
>> Is GPT compatible with Solaris, can Solaris access a GPT disk?
>
> Yes. I'm not sure if it can boot off GPT disk but on Solaris zpool
> automatically creates boundary GPT partition to protect ZFS vdev.
Under the Solaris-based
On Jan 28, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>> Presumably the disks are currently FreeBSD-specific. If I used raw
>> disks instead of slices, could I read them from a Solaris system too?
>
> ^ I'm mostly sure you would be able to read disks from Solaris/x86.
> ^ However Solaris/Sparc uses
29.01.2013 04:37, Thomas Mueller:
28.01.2013 01:57, james:
I have a 9.1 system with some SATA disks in RAIDZ, upgraded from 9.0.
The disks are all the same type, and I formatted them for FreeBSD and
put ZFS in a slice covering most of them.
I have seen suggestions for OpenIndiana etc that it i
28.01.2013 01:57, james:
>I have a 9.1 system with some SATA disks in RAIDZ, upgraded from 9.0.
>
>The disks are all the same type, and I formatted them for FreeBSD and
>put ZFS in a slice covering most of them.
>
>I have seen suggestions for OpenIndiana etc that it is better to let ZFS
>have the
On Jan 27, 2013, at 8:36 PM, Shane Ambler wrote:
> I recall reading that using partitions for zfs on FreeBSD was as good as full
> disks. For a boot zpool we need to at least have a partition for the
> boot-code and one for zfs preventing the use of a full disk.
I have been using ZFS wi
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
There's one other good reason to use partitions when mirroring.
When the time comes to replace a drive in a mirror it is necessary that the
new drive be the same size (or larger) than the one it replaces. Given that
drives of nominally the s
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:40:53 +0200
Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote:
> 28.01.2013 09:03, Steve O'Hara-Smith:
> > On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:05:05 -0800
> > Michael Sierchio wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Shane Ambler
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I recall reading that using partitions for zfs on
28.01.2013 01:57, james:
I have a 9.1 system with some SATA disks in RAIDZ, upgraded from 9.0.
The disks are all the same type, and I formatted them for FreeBSD and
put ZFS in a slice covering most of them.
I have seen suggestions for OpenIndiana etc that it is better to let ZFS
have the whole
28.01.2013 09:03, Steve O'Hara-Smith:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:05:05 -0800
Michael Sierchio wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Shane Ambler
wrote:
I recall reading that using partitions for zfs on FreeBSD was as good as
full disks.
No, it isn't - ZFS can fully utilize disk caches when
28.01.2013 08:05, Michael Sierchio:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Shane Ambler wrote:
I recall reading that using partitions for zfs on FreeBSD was as good as
full disks.
No, it isn't - ZFS can fully utilize disk caches when presented with
whole devices. There are possible reasons to crea
28.01.2013 03:36, Shane Ambler:
On 28/01/2013 10:27, james wrote:
I have a 9.1 system with some SATA disks in RAIDZ, upgraded from 9.0.
The disks are all the same type, and I formatted them for FreeBSD and
put ZFS in a slice covering most of them.
I have seen suggestions for OpenIndiana etc th
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:05:05 -0800
Michael Sierchio wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Shane Ambler
> wrote:
>
> > I recall reading that using partitions for zfs on FreeBSD was as good as
> > full disks.
>
> No, it isn't - ZFS can fully utilize disk caches when presented with
> whole de
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Shane Ambler wrote:
> I recall reading that using partitions for zfs on FreeBSD was as good as
> full disks.
No, it isn't - ZFS can fully utilize disk caches when presented with
whole devices. There are possible reasons to create partitions - one
being that if an
On 28/01/2013 10:27, james wrote:
I have a 9.1 system with some SATA disks in RAIDZ, upgraded from 9.0.
The disks are all the same type, and I formatted them for FreeBSD and
put ZFS in a slice covering most of them.
I have seen suggestions for OpenIndiana etc that it is better to let ZFS
have t
I have a 9.1 system with some SATA disks in RAIDZ, upgraded from 9.0.
The disks are all the same type, and I formatted them for FreeBSD and
put ZFS in a slice covering most of them.
I have seen suggestions for OpenIndiana etc that it is better to let ZFS
have the whole raw disk and that this
17 matches
Mail list logo
