Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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 w

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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 >>> >>> (PAE), which allows 32-bi

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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 > > > >(PAE), which allows 32-bit Windows systems to use more

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

Tim wrote: On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charles Soto <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: While Edward is technically incorrect, the ceiling is still 4GB total physical memory: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx Note that even though

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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 > >> recogniz

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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 adopt

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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.

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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. A

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

onday, June 23, 2008 9:32 AM To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog 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

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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 a

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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 -

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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 wit

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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?

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

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 opens

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Orvar Korvar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For the server Enterprise target, memory is secondary? Running a company > well, and RAM cost is secondary? For the Enterprise target market, RAM > shouldnt be an issue. > > For the consumer market, RAM should be an issue.

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

For the server Enterprise target, memory is secondary? Running a company well, and RAM cost is secondary? For the Enterprise target market, RAM shouldnt be an issue. For the consumer market, RAM should be an issue. But ZFS is not targeted for consumer market. Yet? ZFS is still being polished fo

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Volker A. Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have a quite old machine with an AMD Athlon 900MHz with 640Mb of RAM > > > serving up NFS, WebDAV locally to my house and running my webserver > (Apache) > > > in a Zone. For me performance is perfectly acceptabl

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

> > I have a quite old machine with an AMD Athlon 900MHz with 640Mb of RAM > > serving up NFS, WebDAV locally to my house and running my webserver (Apache) > > in a Zone. For me performance is perfectly acceptable, but this isn't an > > interactive desktop. Not only is performance acceptable when

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 5:33 AM, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tim wrote: > >> I guess I find it ridiculous you're complaining about ram when I can >> purchase 4gb for under 50 dollars on a desktop. >> > > For many people around the world US$50 is a very significant amount of > mone

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

Tim wrote: > I guess I find it ridiculous you're complaining about ram when I can > purchase 4gb for under 50 dollars on a desktop. For many people around the world US$50 is a very significant amount of money. That also assumes the have the money to buy (or have already done so) a motherboard t

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

Remind me again what a veritas license is. If you can't find ram for less than that you need to find a new var/disti On 6/16/08, Chris Siebenmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | I guess I find it ridiculous you're complaining about ram when I can > | purchase 4gb for under 50 dollars on a desk

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

| I guess I find it ridiculous you're complaining about ram when I can | purchase 4gb for under 50 dollars on a desktop. | | Its not like were talking about a 500 dollar purchase. 'On a desktop' is an important qualification here. Server RAM is more expensive, and then you get to multiply it by t

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

I guess I find it ridiculous you're complaining about ram when I can purchase 4gb for under 50 dollars on a desktop. Its not like were talking about a 500 dollar purchase. On 6/16/08, Peter Tribble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:20 PM, dick hoogendijk <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:04:47 +0100 "Peter Tribble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hogwash. What is the reasonable minimum? I'm suspecting it's well > over 2G. 2Gb is perfectly alright. > And as for being unable to get machines with less than 2G, just look > at Sun's price list I'm not saying you c

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:20 PM, dick hoogendijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:21:26 +0100 > "Peter Tribble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The *real* common thread is that you need ridiculous amounts >> of memory to get decent performance out of ZFS > > That's FUD. Older sys

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:21:26 +0100 "Peter Tribble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The *real* common thread is that you need ridiculous amounts > of memory to get decent performance out of ZFS That's FUD. Older systems might not have enough memory, but newer ones can't hardly be bought with less the

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think that if you notice the common thread; those who run SPARC's > are having performance issues vs. those who are running x86. Not that simple. I'm seeing performance issues on x86 just as much as sparc. My sparc

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Kaiwai Gardiner wrote: > > I think that if you notice the common thread; those who run SPARC's > are having performance issues vs. those who are running x86. I know Especially those who run SPARCs with hardly any memory installed. :-) Hobbyists are likely to test OpenSolaris

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

> I think that if you notice the common thread; those who run SPARC's > are having performance issues vs. those who are running x86. I would not say that. For example, my T1000 with 2GB RAM had fair performance. Now that it has 16GB RAM it has improved a lot. :-) Also, I would not call it "perf

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

> > I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes > running nv90 - one > > on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. > (SunBlade > > 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.) > > > > The zfs root box is significantly slower all > around. Not only is > > initial I/O slower, but it seems

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

> > I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes > running nv90 - one > > on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. > (SunBlade > > 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.) > > > > The zfs root box is significantly slower all > around. Not only is > > initial I/O slower, but it seems

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

Peter Tribble wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Here I made the opposite observation: Just installed nv90 to a dated >> notebook DELL D400; unmodified except of a 80GB 2.5" hard disk and - >> of course ! - an extra strip of 1 GB of RAM; making it 1.2 GB

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Volker A. Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes running nv90 - one >> on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. (SunBlade >> 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.) > > Exactly the same here, though with di

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

> I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes running nv90 - one > on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. (SunBlade > 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.) > > The zfs root box is significantly slower all around. Not only is > initial I/O slower, but it seems much less able to

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here I made the opposite observation: Just installed nv90 to a dated > notebook DELL D400; unmodified except of a 80GB 2.5" hard disk and - > of course ! - an extra strip of 1 GB of RAM; making it 1.2 GB > altogether. > Now, first I in

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > Hmm...my SB2K, 2GB RAM, 2x 1050MHz UltraSPARC III Cu CPU, seems > to freeze momentarily for a couple of seconds every now and then in > a zfs root setup on snv_90, which it never did with mostly ufs on snv_81; > that despite having much faster disk

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 02:40:34AM -0700, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > the SAS drives, at a mere 7200 RPM can sustain a sequential transfer > rate about 2.5x that of the 10KRPM FC drives!). I think that't my favorite part about these new high density drives. Don't get me wrong, a TB (or more!) in

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

Hmm...my SB2K, 2GB RAM, 2x 1050MHz UltraSPARC III Cu CPU, seems to freeze momentarily for a couple of seconds every now and then in a zfs root setup on snv_90, which it never did with mostly ufs on snv_81; that despite having much faster disks now (LSI SAS 3800X and a pair of Seagate 1TB SAS drives

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On 6/10/08, Volker A. Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It might just be me, and the 'feel' of it, but it still feels to me that >> the system needs to be under more memory pressure before ZFS gives pages >> back. This could also be because I'm typically using systems with either >> > 128GB, or

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

> It might just be me, and the 'feel' of it, but it still feels to me that > the system needs to be under more memory pressure before ZFS gives pages > back. This could also be because I'm typically using systems with either > > 128GB, or <= 4GB of RAM, and in the smaller case, not having some > h

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Nathan Kroenert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To add to that, it would seem that UFS is more likely to 'give pages > back' before things to to crap and system performance tanks versus ZFS. There were some write throttling changes in recent builds that were meant to a

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

To add to that, it would seem that UFS is more likely to 'give pages back' before things to to crap and system performance tanks versus ZFS. It might just be me, and the 'feel' of it, but it still feels to me that the system needs to be under more memory pressure before ZFS gives pages back. Th

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Dick Hoogendijk wrote: > ZFS is called crap by FreeBSD people, because of the great memory hog > and high CPU usage. I know it zfs uses more memory the a UFS system, > but can somebody give some hints about how much the difference is? I don't see any high CPU usage here. The

[zfs-discuss] memory hog

ZFS is called crap by FreeBSD people, because of the great memory hog and high CPU usage. I know it zfs uses more memory the a UFS system, but can somebody give some hints about how much the difference is? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxde 01/08 ++ __