Darren J Moffat writes:
> >>> You can avoid this by swapping to a zvol, though at the moment this
> >>> requires a fix for CR 6405330. Unfortunately, since one cannot yet dump
> >>> to
> >>> a zvol, one needs a dedicated dump device in this case ;-(
> >> Dedicated dump devices are *always* best,
Rainer Orth wrote:
Gavin Maltby writes:
You can avoid this by swapping to a zvol, though at the moment this
requires a fix for CR 6405330. Unfortunately, since one cannot yet dump to
a zvol, one needs a dedicated dump device in this case ;-(
Dedicated dump devices are *always* best, so this i
Gavin Maltby writes:
> > You can avoid this by swapping to a zvol, though at the moment this
> > requires a fix for CR 6405330. Unfortunately, since one cannot yet dump to
> > a zvol, one needs a dedicated dump device in this case ;-(
>
> Dedicated dump devices are *always* best, so this is no l
On 06/02/06 10:09, Rainer Orth wrote:
Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
So it can look like:
[...]
c0t2d0s1c0t2d0s1 SVM mirror, SWAP SWAP/s1 size =
sizeof(/ + /var +
/opt)
You can avoid this by swappi
Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So it can look like:
[...]
>c0t2d0s1c0t2d0s1 SVM mirror, SWAP SWAP/s1 size =
>sizeof(/ + /var +
> /opt)
You can avoid this by swapping to a zvol, though at the moment t
You propose ((2-way mirrored) x RAID-Z (3+1)) . That gives
you 3 data disks worth and you'd have to loose 2 disk in
each mirror (4 total) to loose data.
For random read load you describe, I could expect that the
per device cache to work nicely; That is file blocks stored
at some given
Hello David,
Friday, June 2, 2006, 4:03:45 AM, you wrote:
DJO> - Original Message -
DJO> From: Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DJO> Date: Thursday, June 1, 2006 1:17 pm
DJO> Subject: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] question about ZFS performance for
webserving/java
>>
- Original Message -
From: Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, June 1, 2006 1:17 pm
Subject: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] question about ZFS performance for webserving/java
> Hello David,
>
> The system itself won't take too much space.
> You can create o
Hello David,
Friday, June 2, 2006, 12:52:05 AM, you wrote:
DJO> - Original Message -
DJO> From: Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DJO> Date: Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:30 pm
DJO> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] question about ZFS performance for
webserving/java
>>
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, June 1, 2006 12:30 pm
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] question about ZFS performance for webserving/java
> Why would you use NFS? These zones are on the same machine as the
> storage, right? You can s
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:35:41AM -1000, David J. Orman wrote:
> 3 - App server would be running in one zone, with a (NFS) mounted ZFS
> filesystem as storage.
>
> 4 - DB server (PgSQL) would be running in another zone, with a (NFS)
> mounted ZFS filesystem as storage.
Why would you use NFS? Th
Hello David,
Thursday, June 1, 2006, 11:35:41 PM, you wrote:
DJO> Just as a hypothetical (not looking for exact science here
DJO> folks..), how would ZFS fare (in your educated opinion) in this sitation:
DJO> 1 - Machine with 8 10k rpm SATA drives. High performance machine
DJO> of sorts (ie dual
Just as a hypothetical (not looking for exact science here folks..), how would
ZFS fare (in your educated opinion) in this sitation:
1 - Machine with 8 10k rpm SATA drives. High performance machine of sorts (ie
dual proc, etc..let's weed out cpu/memory/bus bandwidth as much as possible
from the
13 matches
Mail list logo
