Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS/UFS layout for 4 disk servers

2007-03-12 Thread Roch - PAE
Frank Cusack writes: On March 7, 2007 8:50:53 AM -0800 Matt B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any thoughts on the best practice points I am raising? It disturbs me that it would make a statement like don't use slices for production. I think that's just a performance thing. Right, I

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS/UFS layout for 4 disk servers

2007-03-08 Thread Roch - PAE
Manoj Joseph writes: Matt B wrote: Any thoughts on the best practice points I am raising? It disturbs me that it would make a statement like don't use slices for production. ZFS turns on write cache on the disk if you give it the entire disk to manage. It is good for

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS/UFS layout for 4 disk servers

2007-03-08 Thread Robert Milkowski
Hello Matt, Wednesday, March 7, 2007, 7:31:14 PM, you wrote: MB So it sounds like the consensus is that I should not worry about using slices with ZFS MB and the swap best practice doesn't really apply to my situation of a 4 disk x4200. MB So in summary(please confirm) this is what we are

[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS/UFS layout for 4 disk servers

2007-03-07 Thread Matt B
Thanks for responses. There is a lot there I am looking forward to digesting. Right off the bat though I wanted to bring up something I found just before reading this reply as the answer to this question would automatically answer some other questinos There is a ZFS best practices wiki at

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS/UFS layout for 4 disk servers

2007-03-07 Thread Frank Cusack
On March 7, 2007 8:50:53 AM -0800 Matt B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any thoughts on the best practice points I am raising? It disturbs me that it would make a statement like don't use slices for production. I think that's just a performance thing. -frank

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS/UFS layout for 4 disk servers

2007-03-07 Thread Richard Elling
Frank Cusack wrote: On March 7, 2007 8:50:53 AM -0800 Matt B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any thoughts on the best practice points I am raising? It disturbs me that it would make a statement like don't use slices for production. I think that's just a performance thing. yep, for those systems

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS/UFS layout for 4 disk servers

2007-03-07 Thread Richard Elling
Matt B wrote: Thanks for responses. There is a lot there I am looking forward to digesting. Right off the bat though I wanted to bring up something I found just before reading this reply as the answer to this question would automatically answer some other questinos There is a ZFS best

[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS/UFS layout for 4 disk servers

2007-03-07 Thread Matt B
So it sounds like the consensus is that I should not worry about using slices with ZFS and the swap best practice doesn't really apply to my situation of a 4 disk x4200. So in summary(please confirm) this is what we are saying is a safe bet for using in a highly available production

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS/UFS layout for 4 disk servers

2007-03-07 Thread Wade . Stuart
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/07/2007 12:31:14 PM: So it sounds like the consensus is that I should not worry about using slices with ZFS and the swap best practice doesn't really apply to my situation of a 4 disk x4200. So in summary(please confirm) this is what we are saying is a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS/UFS layout for 4 disk servers

2007-03-07 Thread Manoj Joseph
Matt B wrote: Any thoughts on the best practice points I am raising? It disturbs me that it would make a statement like don't use slices for production. ZFS turns on write cache on the disk if you give it the entire disk to manage. It is good for performance. So, you should use whole disks