Darren:
With all of the talk about performance problems due to
ZFS doing a sync to force the drives to commit to data
being on disk, how much of a benefit is this - especially
for NFS?
I would not call those things as problems, more like setting
proper expectations.
My
ZFS will try to enable write cache if whole disks is given.
Additionally keep in mind that outer region of a disk is much faster.
And it's portable. If you use whole disks, you can export the
pool from one machine and import it on another. There's no way
to export just one slice and leave
is zfs any less efficient with just using a portion of a
disk versus the entire disk?
As others mentioned, if we're given a whole disk (i.e. no slice
is specified) then we can safely enable the write cache.
One other effect -- probably not huge -- is that the block placement
algorithm is most
Jeff Bonwick wrote:
is zfs any less efficient with just using a portion of a
disk versus the entire disk?
As others mentioned, if we're given a whole disk (i.e. no slice
is specified) then we can safely enable the write cache.
With all of the talk about performance problems due to
With all of the talk about performance problems due to
ZFS doing a sync to force the drives to commit to data
being on disk, how much of a benefit is this - especially
for NFS?
It depends. For some drives it's literally 10x.
Also, if I was lucky enough to have a working prestoserv
card
On Aug 3, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Jeff Bonwick wrote:
ZFS will try to enable write cache if whole disks is given.
Additionally keep in mind that outer region of a disk is much faster.
And it's portable. If you use whole disks, you can export the
pool from one machine and import it on another.
Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Additionally keep in mind that outer region of a disk is much faster.
So if you want to put OS and then designate rest of the disk for
application then probably putting ZFS on a slice beginning on cyl 0 is
best in most scenarios.
This has the
And it's portable. If you use whole disks, you can export the
pool from one machine and import it on another. There's no way
to export just one slice and leave the others behind...
I got the impression that the export command exported the contents
of the pool, not the underlying
On Aug 3, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Darren Dunham wrote:
And it's portable. If you use whole disks, you can export the
pool from one machine and import it on another. There's no way
to export just one slice and leave the others behind...
I got the impression that the export command exported the
Ahh, interesting information. Thanks folks, I'm have a better
understanding of this now.
--joe
Jeff Bonwick wrote:
is zfs any less efficient with just using a portion of a
disk versus the entire disk?
As others mentioned, if we're given a whole disk (i.e. no slice
is specified) then
Folks,
I realize this thread has run its course, but I've got a variant of
the original question: What performance problems or anomalies might
one see if mixing both whole disks _and_ slices within the same pool?
I have in mind some Sun boxes (V440, T2000, X4200) with four internal
drives.
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:24:12AM -0700, Marion Hakanson wrote:
zpool create mirror c0t2d0 c0t3d0 mirror c0t0d0s5 c0t1d0s5
Is this allowed? Is it stupid? Will performance be so bad/bizarre that
it should be avoided at all costs? Anybody tried it?
Yes, it's
I know this is going to sound a little vague but...
A coworker said he read somewhere that ZFS is more efficient if you
configure pools from entire disks instead of just slices of disks. I'm
curious if there is any merit to this?
The use case that we had been discussing was something to the
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Joseph Mocker wrote:
The use case that we had been discussing was something to the effect of
building a 2 disk system, install the OS on slice 0 of disk 0 and make the
rest of the disk available for 1/2 of a zfs mirror. Then disk 1 would probably
be partitioned the same,
Hello Joseph,
Thursday, August 3, 2006, 2:02:28 AM, you wrote:
JM I know this is going to sound a little vague but...
JM A coworker said he read somewhere that ZFS is more efficient if you
JM configure pools from entire disks instead of just slices of disks. I'm
JM curious if there is any
15 matches
Mail list logo
