Re: NFS alternatives (was: Re: Storage overhead on zvols)

> Hi all, > > > Am 05.12.2017 um 17:41 schrieb Rodney W. Grimes > > : > > In effect what your asking for is what NFS does, so use NFS and get > > over the fact that this is the way to get what you want. Sure you > > could implement a virt-vfs but I wonder how

Re: Storage overhead on zvols

> On Dec 5, 2017, at 10:41 AM, Rodney W. Grimes > wrote: > >> >> >> Dustin Wenz wrote: >>> I'm not using ZFS in my VMs for data integrity (the host already >>> provides that); it's mainly for the easy creation and management of >>> filesystems, and the

Re: Storage overhead on zvols

> > > Dustin Wenz wrote: > > I'm not using ZFS in my VMs for data integrity (the host already > > provides that); it's mainly for the easy creation and management of > > filesystems, and the ability to do snapshots for rollback and > > replication. > > snapshot and replication works fine on the

Re: Storage overhead on zvols

Hi all, > Am 05.12.2017 um 16:41 schrieb Paul Vixie : > in some bsd related meeting this year i asked allan jude for a bhyve level > null mount, > so that we could access at / inside the guest some subtree of the host, and > avoid block > devices and file systems altogether.

Re: Storage overhead on zvols

Dustin Wenz wrote: I'm not using ZFS in my VMs for data integrity (the host already provides that); it's mainly for the easy creation and management of filesystems, and the ability to do snapshots for rollback and replication. snapshot and replication works fine on the host, acting on the

Re: Storage overhead on zvols

> I'm not using ZFS in my VMs for data integrity (the host already provides > that); it's mainly for the easy creation and management of filesystems, and > the ability to do snapshots for rollback and replication. Some of my > deployments have hundreds of filesystems in an organized hierarchy,

Re: Storage overhead on zvols

the surprising fact that came up in recent threads is that some of you run zfs in your guests. that's quite a bit of unnec'y redundancy and other overheads. i am using UFS in my guests. ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: Storage overhead on zvols

Thanks for linking that resource. The purpose of my posting was to increase the body of knowledge available to people who are running bhyve on zfs. It's a versatile way to deploy guests, but I haven't seen much practical advise about doing it efficiently. Allan's explanation yesterday of how

Re: Storage overhead on zvols

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Dustin Wenz wrote: > I'm starting a new thread based on the previous discussion in "bhyve uses > all available memory during IO-intensive operations" relating to size > inflation of bhyve data stored on zvols. I've done some experimenting

Re: Storage overhead on zvols

On 12/04/2017 18:19, Dustin Wenz wrote: > I'm starting a new thread based on the previous discussion in "bhyve uses all > available memory during IO-intensive operations" relating to size inflation > of bhyve data stored on zvols. I've done some experimenting with this, and I > think it will be

Re: Storage overhead on zvols

I doubt it's best practice, and I'm sure I'm just crazy for doing it, but personally I try and match the ZVOL blocksize to whatever the underlaying filesystem's blocksize is. To me that just makes the most logical sense. -Dustin On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Dustin Wenz