On Tue, Jul 12 at 23:44, Jim Klimov wrote:
2011-07-12 23:14, Eric Sproul пишет:
So finding drives that keep more space in reserve is key to getting
consistent performance under ZFS.
I think I've read in a number of early SSD reviews
(possibly regarding Intel devices - not certain now)
that the
I am now using S11E and a OCZ Vertex 3, 240GB SSD disk. I am using it in a SATA
2 port (not the new SATA 6gbps).
The PC seems to work better now, the worst lag is gone. For instance, I am
using Sunray, and if my girl friend is using the PC, and I am doing bit
torrenting, the PC could lock up f
2011-07-12 23:14, Eric Sproul пишет:
So finding drives that keep more space in reserve is key to getting
consistent performance under ZFS.
I think I've read in a number of early SSD reviews
(possibly regarding Intel devices - not certain now)
that the vendor provided some low-level formatting
t
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Eric Sproul wrote:
> I see, thanks for that explanation. So finding drives that keep more
> space in reserve is key to getting consistent performance under ZFS.
More spare area might give you more performance, but the big
difference is the lifetime of the device
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> Most "enterprise" SSDs use something like 30% for spare area. So a
> drive with 128MiB (base 2) of flash will have 100MB (base 10) of
> available storage. A consumer level drive will have ~ 6% spare, or
> 128MiB of flash and 128MB of available
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Eric Sproul wrote:
> But that's exactly the problem-- ZFS being copy-on-write will
> eventually have written to all of the available LBA addresses on the
> drive, regardless of how much live data exists. It's the rate of
> change, in other words, rather than the a
but RAID is still a problem for TRIM at the OS level.
>
> Henry
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> From: Jim Klimov
> Cc: ZFS Discussions
> Sent: Tue, July 12, 2011 4:18:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Pure SSD Pool
>
> 2011-07-12 9:06, Brandon High пише
from ZFS level should
be
a better solution but RAID is still a problem for TRIM at the OS level.
Henry
- Original Message
From: Jim Klimov
Cc: ZFS Discussions
Sent: Tue, July 12, 2011 4:18:28 AM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Pure SSD Pool
2011-07-12 9:06, Brandon High пишет:
> On
I think high end SSDs, like those from Pliant, use a significant amount of
"over allocation", and internal remapping and internal COW, so that they can
automatically garbage collect when they need to, without TRIM. This only works
if the drive has enough extra free space that it knows about (be
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Eric Sproul wrote:
Now, others have hinted that certain controllers are better than
others in the absence of TRIM, but I don't see how GC could know what
blocks are available to be erased without information from the OS.
Drives which keep spare space in reserve (as any res
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Eric Sproul wrote:
>> Interesting-- what is the suspected impact of not having TRIM support?
>
> There shouldn't be much, since zfs isn't changing data in place. Any
> drive with reasonable garbage collection
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> 2011-07-12 9:06, Brandon High пишет:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Eric Sproul wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting-- what is the suspected impact of not having TRIM support?
>>
>> There shouldn't be much, since zfs isn't changing data in place.
2011-07-12 9:06, Brandon High пишет:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Eric Sproul wrote:
Interesting-- what is the suspected impact of not having TRIM support?
There shouldn't be much, since zfs isn't changing data in place. Any
drive with reasonable garbage collection (which is pretty much
ev
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Eric Sproul wrote:
> Interesting-- what is the suspected impact of not having TRIM support?
There shouldn't be much, since zfs isn't changing data in place. Any
drive with reasonable garbage collection (which is pretty much
everything these days) should be fine un
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> Most drives should work well for a pure SSD pool. I have a postgresql
> database on a linux box on a mirrored set of C300s. AFAIK ZFS doesn't yet
> support TRIM, so that can be an issue. Apart from that, it should work well.
Interest
> I have a dual xeon 64GB 1U server with two free 3.5" drive slots. I
> also have a free PCI-E slot.
>
> I'm going to run a postgress database with a business intelligence
> application.
>
> The database size is not really set. It will be between 250-500GB
> running on Solaris 10 or b134.
Runnin
16 matches
Mail list logo