Wojciech Puchar wrote:
ZFS on FreeBSD is GEOM-ified. While I believe what Wojciech said about
needing a full disk is correct under Solaris, it's not the case in
i never said it requires full disk. but it will work very slow sharing a
disk with non-ZFS things.
Well, of course if you are
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
ZFS can be installed on partitions and share disks with other things,
but the performance will be bad.
There is nothing ZFS-specific about this statement.
ZFS - contrary to every other filesystem that use FreeBSD disk I/O
scheduler - does it's own I/O scheduling, so
I'm behind on my mailing list reading and don't really want to
prolong/resurrect this thread unduly, but I do want to respond to this
point:
On Thursday 12 June 2008 07:37:06 am Wojciech Puchar wrote:
you must have disks dedicated for raidz, disks dedicated for mirrored
storage and disks
ZFS on FreeBSD is GEOM-ified. While I believe what Wojciech said about
needing a full disk is correct under Solaris, it's not the case in
i never said it requires full disk. but it will work very slow sharing a
disk with non-ZFS things.
to say more: zfs set copies could be usable to
point:
On Thursday 12 June 2008 07:37:06 am Wojciech Puchar wrote:
you must have disks dedicated for raidz, disks dedicated for mirrored
storage and disks dedicated for unprotected storage. it's inflexible
and not much usable.
actually - much less usable than legacy
Just a small hint: You should configure your MUA to
produce proper attribution lines.
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
A broken processor usually results in random crashes, not
silent data corruption.
result in both in my practice. with broken companion chips (chipset)
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:31:35 +0200 (CEST),
Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
W but why you need [a filesystem for linux that do checksum on the fly]?! all
W PATA/SATA drives do checksumming on every read. in hardware, no CPU load.
These days, hardware isn't just hardware. A disk
Anders Häggström wrote:
I plan to install a web server for production use and ZFS looks very
interesting, especially since it has built-in support for RAID and
checksum.
ZFS is very nice, but slightly over-hyped imho. However, some of the hype is
warranted and for some use cases ZFS is a
ZFS is very nice, but slightly over-hyped imho.
not slightly and not only over-hyped. it's definitely far from being for
storage as VM is for memory.
for example you can't select per file (or at least - per
pseudo-filesystem) if you want no protection, mirrored or raidz.
you must have
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 13:37 +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
for example you can't select per file (or at least - per
pseudo-filesystem) if you want no protection, mirrored or raidz.
Isn't it a pity that the fbsd implementation of ZFS lacks such a
feature. Your anti stories of ZFS often show
pseudo-filesystem) if you want no protection, mirrored or raidz.
Isn't it a pity that the fbsd implementation of ZFS lacks such a
feature. Your anti stories of ZFS often show these aspects.
Almost none of your comments on zfs are valid in Solaris.
AFAIK on solaris set copies= and what i told
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
3) a CPU,cache and memory bandwidth hogging feature of checksumming all
blocks. thing that are already done in disk hardware. fortunately you can
turn this off
Obviously you have been lucky to never be a victim of
silent disk corruption (or you just haven't
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
3) a CPU,cache and memory bandwidth hogging feature of checksumming all
blocks. thing that are already done in disk hardware. fortunately you can
turn this off
Obviously you have been lucky to never be a victim of
silent disk corruption (or you just haven't noticed).
[attribution fixed]
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Oliver Fromme wrote:
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
3) a CPU,cache and memory bandwidth hogging feature of checksumming all
blocks. thing that are already done in disk hardware. fortunately you can
turn this off
Obviously you have been
A broken processor usually results in random crashes, not
silent data corruption.
result in both in my practice. with broken companion chips (chipset) it's
silent data corruption is common, while crashes can be under specific
cases. that's from what i've got.
or even calculate checksum
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:29:01 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the ZFS checksumming makes the FS selfhealing. Chance for
selfhealing WHAT?!
could you please instead of repeating sun marketing text like all
others tell something clearer?
Do your own homework,
Because the ZFS checksumming makes the FS selfhealing. Chance for
selfhealing WHAT?!
could you please instead of repeating sun marketing text like all
others tell something clearer?
Do your own homework, please.
i actually did. instead of repeating marketing blah blah.
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
2) ZFS RAID-z turns your X drives to single drive performance both on read
and write. every normal RAID-5 implementation will give you random read
speed of X-1 times single drive speed, while slow random write speeds (but
still at least half of single drive). but this
random write speeds (but still at least half of single drive). but
this is advertised as a feature
Is this because of checksum verification (the need to read all
components) or something else? Any documentation/references?
RAID-Z stores a single checksum over the whole stripe, instead of
Thank you all for discussing this with me. I really like to here your opinions.
I wont answer to all of your posts, because half of them is off-topic,
but still interesting to read.
I haven't heard/read about any huge CPU consumptions from ZFS, not yet
at least. If you have links to benchmarks
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:58:10 +0200
Anders Häggström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the memory I've read that ZFS use up to approximately 700MB of ram
for caching, which is quite much, but not too much compared to my 4GB
that is available. However there doesn't seem to be an upper limit for
ZFS,
2008/6/9 Dick Hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:58:10 +0200
Anders Häggström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the memory I've read that ZFS use up to approximately 700MB of ram
for caching, which is quite much, but not too much compared to my 4GB
that is available. However
I haven't heard/read about any huge CPU consumptions from ZFS, not yet
as i already said. most people today have problems as they have too fast
CPU and too much RAM ;)
they don't see high CPU load on quad core machine with 16GB RAM having not
big load :)
For the memory I've read that
This limit can be tuned. At least on solaris.
Also, ZFS definitely prefers a 64 bit kernel.
That's good to know, thanks! Do you have any reference/link that
describes how to manage that? It's good to know for the future.
when i tested it i was able to run it on 256MB machine stable after
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:31:35 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UFS use what's unused. works on 16MB and 16GB.
It's difficult to tell about consumed memory in ZFS vs UFS since UFS
can be quite agressive at caching as well. -(although this caching is
often hidden by system
Running 40 sparse zones is hardly noticable.
Try that with 40 jails;-)
you probably don't have your jails configured right. my 1GB pentium 4
machine runs 20 jails, and it is hardly noticable.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Hello list!
I plan to install a web server for production use and ZFS looks very
interesting, especially since it has built-in support for RAID and
checksum.
The hardware is already purchased, a 1U-casis with a PhemonX4 9550
CPU, 4GB ECC RAM @ 800MHz and 2x500GB SATA disks and I am about to
Anders Häggström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I plan to install a web server for production use and ZFS looks very
interesting, especially since it has built-in support for RAID and
checksum.
The hardware is already purchased, a 1U-casis with a PhemonX4 9550
CPU, 4GB ECC RAM @ 800MHz and
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 16:24:56 +0200
Fabian Keil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a system with an Athlon 1700+ and only 512 MB of RAM,
receiving snapshots on OpenSolaris renders the GUI pretty
much useless.
Note that the system is below Sun's recommended specifications
for ZFS, though. Things may
Thanks for the quick answers!
2008/6/8 Fabian Keil [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just in case you assume that ZFS on OpenSolaris 2008.05
would be superior to ZFS on FreeBSD, this hasn't been my
experience.
Yes, I assumed that because Sun can implement and optimize ZFS to fit
OpenSolaris, while we run
2008/6/8 Fabian Keil [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Anders Häggström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Just in case you assume that ZFS on OpenSolaris 2008.05
would be superior to ZFS on FreeBSD, this hasn't been my
experience.
On a system with an Athlon 1700+ and only 512 MB of RAM,
receiving snapshots
The choice is probably between Debian 4.0r3, FreeBSD 7.0 and
OpenSolaris 2008.05. All of them have their pros and cons.
could you tell any pros for opensolaris?
I think Debian / Linux, almost falls off because it lacks support for
native ZFS and I have not found any alternative filesystem
On a system with an Athlon 1700+ and only 512 MB of RAM,
receiving snapshots on OpenSolaris renders the GUI pretty
much useless.
looks like very bad CPU and I/O scheduling on Solaris.
maybe that's their 32-64 hardware threads capable chip is advertised so
much? :)
On FreeBSD ZFS operations
On a system with an Athlon 1700+ and only 512 MB of RAM,
receiving snapshots on OpenSolaris renders the GUI pretty
much useless.
On FreeBSD ZFS operations can cause delays as well, but it's
significantly better than on OpenSolaris, even though FreeBSD's
ZFS pool lies on a geli-encrypted gmirror
As you might have read, I have quite a lot of RAM available on this
server (4GB), but ofcource I want the operating system to take as
little as possible so that I have as much RAM as possible over for the
server processes to work with (mostly web-server and mysql-server).
ZFS is memory and CPU
If you're running a desktop it makes quite a difference, of course.
Interesstingly enough PC BSD configures kern.clockrate to 2000.
human can't notice delays below 10ms.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Christian Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/6/8 Fabian Keil [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Anders Häggström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Just in case you assume that ZFS on OpenSolaris 2008.05
would be superior to ZFS on FreeBSD, this hasn't been my
experience.
On a system with an
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:08:59 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As you might have read, I have quite a lot of RAM available on this
server (4GB), but ofcource I want the operating system to take as
little as possible so that I have as much RAM as possible over for
the
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:05:08 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a system with an Athlon 1700+ and only 512 MB of RAM,
receiving snapshots on OpenSolaris renders the GUI pretty
much useless.
looks like very bad CPU and I/O scheduling on Solaris.
maybe that's their
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:01:23 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
while i don't use it, it works rather as in manual. no crashes if
configured right.
that's just my opinion about ZFS that it isn't very useful at all.
it's just memory and CPU eater.
Your entitled to your
This hasn't anything to do with ZFS but on the different configuration
of the clockrate. FreeBSD uses 1000 ticks, while it's 500 on Solaris.
With OpenSolaris 2008.05 the GUI becomes unresponsive for
multiple-seconds on my system, and it's not clear to me
how the clock rate difference would
ZFS is memory and CPU eater. prepare that very few will be left for
actual work ;)
Bollocks.
It consumes memory. The more seperate filesystems, the more memory. But
don't execurate. For a webserver on zfs 4GB is more than enough.
still enough for UFS with softupdates - which is REALLY fast.
configured right.
that's just my opinion about ZFS that it isn't very useful at all.
it's just memory and CPU eater.
Your entitled to your opinion, but please try to base it on some facts.
ZFS is herre to stay. You better get used to it. at least you could try
AFAIK there are no plans to
ZFS is herre to stay. You better get used to it. at least you could try
to work with it before you make up an opinion. Have you -any- idea at
all what this FS is capable off?
if you like - quick summary
1) ZFS turns random writes into sequential writes as they say. yes
that's true. they just
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
2) ZFS RAID-z turns your X drives to single drive performance both on
read and write. every normal RAID-5 implementation will give you random
read speed of X-1 times single drive speed, while slow random write
speeds (but still at least half of single drive). but this
In the last episode (Jun 09), Ivan Voras said:
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
2) ZFS RAID-z turns your X drives to single drive performance both
on read and write. every normal RAID-5 implementation will give you
random read speed of X-1 times single drive speed, while slow
random write speeds
46 matches
Mail list logo
