On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 20:02:54 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > First surprise, with only 4GB I had set primarycache=metadata,
>
> you mean 4 GIGABYTES of memory is "ONLY"?
At less than €30 - yes I think only is reasonable, I'd have bought
more but 4GB is all the motherboard wou
If the rest of the world thought like you we would still be trying to invent
the wheel.
???
what wheel.
UFS is already invented. For LONG time. And UFS+softupdates works great.
much better than new trash
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing lis
First surprise, with only 4GB I had set primarycache=metadata,
you mean 4 GIGABYTES of memory is "ONLY"?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail t
Discover it alone. I told already enough about it but it results in attacks
from ZFS (and general "new technology") fanatics.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe,
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 13:29:51 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> > are showing me. Read performance OTOH is strange, zpool and systat both
> > reporting consistently an aggregated read speed of around 120MB/s during
> > the block read tests (which seems a bit slow for the drives - and indeed
> >
are showing me. Read performance OTOH is strange, zpool and systat both
reporting consistently an aggregated read speed of around 120MB/s during
the block read tests (which seems a bit slow for the drives - and indeed
systat reports the drives at less than 50% utilisation) but bonnie is only
repor
Hi,
I've been looking at the performance of my new NAS box - built
using a Jetway JNF99FL-525 with 4GB of 1066 DDR3 and a pair of 2TB Samsung
F4 drives in a mirror. It all works but the performance reports are puzzling
Running bonnie -s 8192 - reports character and block w
