Hi,
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 07:00:33AM +1000, David Crosswell wrote:
>
> I've been checking out your hardware page here:
> http://tinyurl.com/3qbp9ck and wanting to know which of these
> supermicro opteron server boards work best with Dragonfly off the
> shelf.
They all do. I've never had troubl
Yes, I understand that. I'm looking forward to doing something with
Hammer, but I've spoken to a couple of guys at the local Users group
who swear they'll never use anything else but ZFS - got it running on
FreeBSD and I looked at Dragonfly with UFS and Hammer and thought with
ZFS they'd have every
The 2011Q1 package for 2.10/x86_64 DragonFly are done and uploaded.
The 2011Q1 2.10/i386 packages will be done later today... now that I
have the correct filepath and permissions.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Matthew Dillon
wrote:
> My weekend schedule is too crowded so we will be doing th
It's certainly possible. Nobody's working on it right now, to my
knowledge. I'm more interesting in seeing Hammer grow, so I'm not
that concerned about it.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:03 PM, David Crosswell
wrote:
> I understand the availability of UFS and Hammer in the Dragonfly
> environment,
I understand the availability of UFS and Hammer in the Dragonfly
environment, but is ZFS possible, or are there any plans to facilitate it if
it isn't?
Regards,
David Crosswell.
--
In a world without walls and fences, what need have we for Windows or
Gates?
http://www.weavers-web.org
Hello one and all.
I've been checking out your hardware page here:
http://tinyurl.com/3qbp9ck and wanting to know which of these
supermicro opteron server boards work best with Dragonfly off the
shelf.
I'm looking at building a small server to familiarise myself with all the
BSDs, for study purpos
My weekend schedule is too crowded so we will be doing the official
release Monday evening.
HEAD is now 2.11 and we have a 2.10 release branch. 2011Q1 packages
have been built though some work is still ongoing. Preliminary nrelease
builds have succeeded and testing continues.
:Hi all,
:
:can someone compare/describe need of RAM size by deduplication in
:Hammer? There's something interesting about deduplication in ZFS
:http://openindiana.org/pipermail/openindiana-discuss/2011-April/003574.html
:
:Thx
The ram is basically needed to store matching CRCs. The on-line
I deduped a dataset that from ~600G -> 396G on a system with 256MB of
physical RAM and a 32GB swapcache. Peak Virt size of 'hammer dedup'
was in the 700MB range. double_buffer was on. Performance was pretty
reasonable and the system was plenty usable the whole time. Don't
remember how long it took,