Yes. But what is enough reserved free memory? If you need 1Mb for a normal
configuration you might need 2Mb when you are doing ZFS on ZFS. (I am just
guessing).
This is the same problem as mounting an NFS server on itself via NFS. Also
not supported.
The system has shrinkable caches and
Mattias Pantzare wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:15, Markus Kovero markus.kov...@nebula.fi wrote:
Such configuration was known to cause deadlocks. Even if it works now (which I
don't expect to be the case) it will make your data to be cached twice. The CPU
utilization will also be
Erik Trimble wrote:
On 9/22/2010 11:15 AM, Markus Kovero wrote:
Such configuration was known to cause deadlocks. Even if it works
now (which I don't expect to be the case) it will make your data to
be cached twice. The CPU utilization will also be much higher, etc.
All in all I strongly
Isn't this a matter of not keeping enough free memory as a workspace? By
free memory, I am referring to unallocated memory and also recoverable main
memory used for shrinkable read caches (shrinkable by discarding cached
data). If the system keeps enough free and recoverable memory
What is an example of where a checksummed outside pool would not be able
to protect a non-checksummed inside pool? Would an intermittent
RAM/motherboard/CPU failure that only corrupted the inner pool's block
before it was passed to the outer pool (and did not corrupt the outer
pool's
Markus Kovero wrote:
What is an example of where a checksummed outside pool would not be able
to protect a non-checksummed inside pool? Would an intermittent
RAM/motherboard/CPU failure that only corrupted the inner pool's block
before it was passed to the outer pool (and did not corrupt the
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 08:48, Haudy Kazemi kaze0...@umn.edu wrote:
Mattias Pantzare wrote:
ZFS needs free memory for writes. If you fill your memory with dirty
data zfs has to flush that data to disk. If that disk is a virtual
disk in zfs on the same computer those writes need more memory
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 06:58:29AM +, Markus Kovero wrote:
What is an example of where a checksummed outside pool would not be able
to protect a non-checksummed inside pool? Would an intermittent
RAM/motherboard/CPU failure that only corrupted the inner pool's block
before it was
Hi, I'm asking for opinions here, any possible disaster happening or
performance issues related in setup described below.
Point being to create large pool and smaller pools within where you can monitor
easily iops and bandwidth usage without using dtrace or similar techniques.
1. Create pool
#
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 02:06:27PM +, Markus Kovero wrote:
Hi, I'm asking for opinions here, any possible disaster happening or
performance issues related in setup described below.
Point being to create large pool and smaller pools within where you can
monitor easily iops and bandwidth
Such configuration was known to cause deadlocks. Even if it works now (which
I don't expect to be the case) it will make your data to be cached twice. The
CPU utilization will also be much higher, etc.
All in all I strongly recommend against such setup.
--
Pawel Jakub Dawidek
On 9/22/2010 11:15 AM, Markus Kovero wrote:
Such configuration was known to cause deadlocks. Even if it works now (which I
don't expect to be the case) it will make your data to be cached twice. The CPU
utilization will also be much higher, etc.
All in all I strongly recommend against such
Actually, the mechanics of local pools inside pools is significantly
different than using remote volumes (potentially exported ZFS volumes)
to build a local pool from.
I don't see how, I'm referring to method where hostA shares local iscsi volume
to hostB where volume is being mirrored
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:15, Markus Kovero markus.kov...@nebula.fi wrote:
Such configuration was known to cause deadlocks. Even if it works now (which
I don't expect to be the case) it will make your data to be cached twice.
The CPU utilization will also be much higher, etc.
All in all
If you write to a zvol on a different host (via iSCSI) those writes
use memory in a different memory pool (on the other computer). No
deadlock.
I would expect in a usual configuration that one side of a mirrored
iSCSI-based pool would be on the same host as it's underlying zvol's
pool.
--
If you write to a zvol on a different host (via iSCSI) those writes
use memory in a different memory pool (on the other computer). No
deadlock.
I would expect in a usual configuration that one side of a mirrored
iSCSI-based pool would be on the same host as it's underlying zvol's
pool.
16 matches
Mail list logo
