Re: [zfs-discuss] poor NFS/ZFS performance

2006-11-24 Thread Roch - PAE
This thread started with the notion that ZFS provided a very bad NFS service to the point of 10X degradation over say UFS. What I hope we have an agreement on, is that these scale of performance difference does not come from ZFS but from an NFS service that would sacrifice integrity. Enabling

[zfs-discuss] Re: Size of raidz

2006-11-24 Thread Podlipnik
When creating raidz pool out of n disks where n =2 pool size will get a size of the smallest disk multiplied by n: # zpool create -f newpool raidz c1t12d0 c1t10d0 c1t13d0 # zpool list NAMESIZEUSED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT newpool 139G141K

Re: [nfs-discuss] Re: [zfs-discuss] poor NFS/ZFS performance

2006-11-24 Thread Calum Mackay
I should perhaps note that my last email on delegation describes the optimisations possible under the NFSv4 protocol, as per RFC, all of which are not necessarily implemented in our own Solaris client. In particular, I think that fsync and committed writes do still go through to the server,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: bare metal ZFS ? How To ?

2006-11-24 Thread Dennis Clarke
Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I think the question is on the lines of how to access and more importantly - Backup zfs pools/filesystems present on a system by just booting from a CD/DVD. I think the answer would be on the lines of (forced?) importing of zfs pools present on the system and

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Size of raidz

2006-11-24 Thread Richard Elling
Podlipnik wrote: When creating raidz pool out of n disks where n =2 pool size will get a size of the smallest disk multiplied by n: # zpool create -f newpool raidz c1t12d0 c1t10d0 c1t13d0 # zpool list NAMESIZEUSED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT newpool