So does that mean ZFS is not for consumer computer?
If ZFS require 4GB of Ram for operation, that means i will need 8GB+ Ram if i
were to use Photoshop or any other memory intensive application?
And it seems ZFS memory usage scales with the amount of HDD space?
This message posted from
Edward wrote:
So does that mean ZFS is not for consumer computer?
Not at all. Consumer computers are plenty powerful enough
to use ZFS with.
If ZFS require 4GB of Ram for operation, that means i will
need 8GB+ Ram if i were to use Photoshop or any other memory
intensive application?
ZFS
Edward wrote:
So does that mean ZFS is not for consumer computer?
If ZFS require 4GB of Ram for operation, that means i will need 8GB+ Ram if
i were to use Photoshop or any other memory intensive application?
No. It works fine on desktops - I'm writing this on an older Athlon64
with
Erik Trimble wrote:
Edward wrote:
So does that mean ZFS is not for consumer computer?
If ZFS require 4GB of Ram for operation, that means i will need 8GB+ Ram if
i were to use Photoshop or any other memory intensive application?
No. It works fine on desktops - I'm writing
On Monday 23 June 2008 09:39:13 Kaiwai Gardiner wrote:
Erik Trimble wrote:
Edward wrote:
So does that mean ZFS is not for consumer computer?
If ZFS require 4GB of Ram for operation, that means i will need
8GB+ Ram if i were to use Photoshop or any other memory
intensive application?
Hi folks,
I am member of Solaris Install team and I am currently working
on making Slim installer compliant with ZFS boot design specification:
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2006/370/commitment-materials/spec-txt/
After ZFS boot project was integrated into Nevada and support
I agree to other comments. From the Day 1 ZFS is fine tuned for JBOD's.
While Raid cards are welcome ZFS will perform better with JBOD's.
Most of the Raid cards do have limited power and bandwith to support platter
speeds of the newer drives. And ZFS code seems to be more intelligent for
caching.
No, ZFS loves memory and unlike most other FS's around it can make good use
of memory. But ZFS will free memory if it recognizes that other apps require
memory or you can limit the cache ARC will be using.
To my experiance ZFS still performs nicely on 1 GB boxes.
PS: How much 4 GB Ram costs for
James C. McPherson wrote:
Andrius wrote:
Boyd Adamson wrote:
Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
there is a small confusion with send receive.
zfs andrius/sounds was snapshoted @421 and should be copied to new
zpool beta that on external USB disk.
After
/usr/sbin/zfs send andrius/[EMAIL
I am running zfs 3 on SunOS zen 5.10 Generic_118855-33 i86pc i386 i86pc
What is baffling is that the disk did come online and appear as healthy, but
zpool showed the fs inconsistency. As Miles said, after the disk came back
the resilver did not resume.
The only additions i have to the sequence
On 6/23/08 6:22 AM, Mertol Ozyoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few days a ago a customer tested a Sunfire X4500 connected to a network
with 4 x 1 Gbit ethernets. X4500 have modest CPU power and do not use any
Raid card. The unit easly performaed 400 MB/sec on write from LAN tests
which clearly
On 6/23/08 6:24 AM, Mertol Ozyoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, ZFS loves memory and unlike most other FS's around it can make good use
of memory. But ZFS will free memory if it recognizes that other apps require
memory or you can limit the cache ARC will be using.
This is an important
Hi Jan, comments below...
jan damborsky wrote:
Hi folks,
I am member of Solaris Install team and I am currently working
on making Slim installer compliant with ZFS boot design specification:
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2006/370/commitment-materials/spec-txt/
After ZFS
Hi All ;
One of our customer is suffered from FS being corrupted after an unattanded
shutdonw due to power problem.
They want to switch to ZFS.
From what I read on, ZFS will most probably not be corrupted from the same
event. But I am not sure how will Oracle be affected from a sudden
From my usage, the first question you should ask your customer is how much
of a performance hit they can spare when switching to ZFS for Oracle. I've
done lots of tweaking (following threads I've read on the mailing list), but
I still can't seem to get enough performance out of any databases on
Yes you are all correct. Ram cost nothing today, even though it might be
bouncing back to their normal margin. DDR2 Ram are relatively cheap. Not to
mention DDR3 will bring us double or more memory capacity.
Most people could afford 4GB Ram on their Desktop today. With 8GB Ram for
Prosumers.
Richard Elling wrote:
Hi Jan, comments below...
jan damborsky wrote:
Hi folks,
I am member of Solaris Install team and I am currently working
on making Slim installer compliant with ZFS boot design specification:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Edward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes you are all correct. Ram cost nothing today, even though it might be
bouncing back to their normal margin. DDR2 Ram are relatively cheap. Not to
mention DDR3 will bring us double or more memory capacity.
Not likely. Their
Mertol Ozyoney wrote:
Hi All ;
One of our customer is suffered from FS being corrupted after an
unattanded shutdonw due to power problem.
They want to switch to ZFS.
From what I read on, ZFS will most probably not be corrupted from the
same event. But I am not sure how will Oracle be
Mike Gerdts wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:18 PM, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would one do that? Just keep an eye on the root pool and all is good.
The only good argument I have for separating out some of /var is for
boot environment management. I grew tired of
mo == Mertol Ozyoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mo One of our customer is suffered from FS being corrupted after
mo an unattanded shutdonw due to power problem.
mo They want to switch to ZFS.
mo From what I read on, ZFS will most probably not be corrupted
mo from the same
On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Miles Nordin wrote:
unplanned power outage that
happens after fsync returns
Aye, but isn't that the real rub ... when the power fails after the
write but *before* the fsync has occurred...
--
Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank
5430
Miles Nordin wrote:
mo == Mertol Ozyoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mo One of our customer is suffered from FS being corrupted after
mo an unattanded shutdonw due to power problem.
mo They want to switch to ZFS.
mo From what I read on, ZFS will most probably
On 6/23/08 11:59 AM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Edward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the sad thing is Windows XP / Vista is still 32Bit. It doesn't
recognize more then 3.x GB of Ram. 64Bit version is still premature and
hardly OEM are adopting it.
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charles Soto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/23/08 11:59 AM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Edward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the sad thing is Windows XP / Vista is still 32Bit. It doesn't
recognize more then 3.x GB of
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 03:16:45PM -0400, Brian H. Nelson wrote:
Limits on physical memory for 32-bit platforms also depend on the
Physical Address Extension
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796%28VS.85%29.aspx
(PAE), which allows 32-bit Windows systems to use more than 4 GB
Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 03:16:45PM -0400, Brian H. Nelson wrote:
Limits on physical memory for 32-bit platforms also depend on the
Physical Address Extension
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366796%28VS.85%29.aspx
(PAE), which allows 32-bit Windows
I modified the ZFS Admin Guide to show a simple zfs send | zfs recv
example, then a more complex example using ssh to another system.
Thanks for the feedback...
Cindy
Andrius wrote:
James C. McPherson wrote:
Andrius wrote:
Boyd Adamson wrote:
Andrius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Ralf Bertling wrote:
Hi list,
as this matter pops up every now and then in posts on this list I just
want to clarify that the real performance of RaidZ (in its current
implementation) is NOT anything that follows from raidz-style data
efficient redundancy or the copy-on-write design used
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Orvar Korvar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldnt it be nice to break out all file systems in separate zfs file
systems? Then you could snapshot each file system individually. Just like
each user has his own filesystem, and I can snapshot that filesystem
Yeah, that's something I'd love to see. CIFS isn't quite there yet, but it's
miles ahead of Samba, and as soon as it is ready we'll want to be rolling it
out under Sun Cluster.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Marcelo Leal wrote:
Thanks all for the answers!
Seems like the solution to have a opensolaris storage solution is the CIFS
project. And there is no agent to provide HA, so seems like a good project
too.
Currently, the HA-NFS service requires that you disable the
sharenfs property.
re == Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
kb == Keith Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
re the disk lies about the persistence of the data. ZFS knows
re disks lie, so it sends sync commands when necessary
(1) i don't think ``lie'' is a correct characerization given that the
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ross wrote:
Yeah, that's something I'd love to see. CIFS isn't quite there yet,
but it's miles ahead of Samba, and as soon as it is ready we'll want
to be rolling it out under Sun Cluster.
If Samba is already there for many people for many years, in what
way is native
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 01:36:53PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
But, but, but, PAE works so nice on my Solaris 8 x86 boxes for
massive /tmp. :-)
What CPU? If it's a 64-bit CPU, you don't need PAE. ;)
Back on topic: the one thing I haven't tried out is ZFS on a
32-bit-only system with
On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:06:19AM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Brian,
BH A three-way mirror and three disks in a double parity array are going to
get you
BH the same usable space. They are going to get you the same level of
redundancy.
BH The only difference is that the RAIDZ2
Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:18:21AM -0600, Lori Alt wrote:
Sorry it's taken me so long to weigh in on this.
You're busy with important things, we'll forgive you. ;)
With zfs, we don't actually have to put /var in its own
slice. We can achieve the same
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:18:21AM -0600, Lori Alt wrote:
Sorry it's taken me so long to weigh in on this.
You're busy with important things, we'll forgive you. ;)
With zfs, we don't
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 05:45:45PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
I think the ability to have different policies for file systems
is pure goodness -- though you pay for it on the backup/
restore side.
That's a price I for one am willing to pay. ;)
A side question though, my friends who run
Hi All,
the separating of /var is something that comes from the Unix
tradition. Much of the Unix tradition of systems administration is
based on making sure systems with many users remain stable and so
administrators are prepared to work to make the system more reliable.
Common
Miles Nordin wrote:
re == Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
kb == Keith Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
re the disk lies about the persistence of the data. ZFS knows
re disks lie, so it sends sync commands when necessary
(1) i don't think ``lie'' is a correct
Maurice Castro wrote:
Hi All,
the separating of /var is something that comes from the Unix
tradition. Much of the Unix tradition of systems administration is
based on making sure systems with many users remain stable and so
administrators are prepared to work to make the system
Moved from PSARC to zfs-code...this discussion is seperate from the case.
Eric kustarz wrote:
On Jun 23, 2008, at 1:20 PM, Darren Reed wrote:
eric kustarz wrote:
On Jun 23, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Darren Reed wrote:
Tim Haley wrote:
primarycache=all | none | metadata
Controls what
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Brian Hechinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not a purely Solaris phenomenon, this is a UNIX phenomenon.
People who run Linux or OSX (I can't speak for Windows users) tend to
be new to the game and feel that This 40/80/500GB disk will never
fill up and so
Mike Gerdts writes:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Brian Hechinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is not a purely Solaris phenomenon, this is a UNIX phenomenon.
People who run Linux or OSX (I can't speak for Windows users) tend to
be new to the game and feel that This 40/80/500GB disk will
Yaniv Aknin wrote:
Thanks for the reference.
I read that thread to the end, and saw there are some complex considerations
regarding changing st_dev on an open file, but no decision. Despite this
complexity, I think the situation is quite brain damanged - I'm moving large
files between
46 matches
Mail list logo
