On 07/08/2014 11:54 PM, Pavel Snajdr wrote: > On 07/08/2014 07:52 PM, Scott Dowdle wrote: >> Greetings, >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> (offtopic) We can not use ZFS. Unfortunately, NAS with something like >>> Nexenta is to expensive for us. >> From what I've gathered from a few presentations, ZFS on Linux >> (http://zfsonlinux.org/) is as stable but more performant than it is on the >> OpenSolaris forks... so you can build your own if you can spare the people >> to learn the best practices. >> >> I don't have a use for ZFS myself so I'm not really advocating it. >> >> TYL, >> > Hi all, > > we run tens of OpenVZ nodes (bigger boxes, 256G RAM, 12cores+, 90 CTs at > least). We've used to run ext4+flashcache, but ext4 has proven to be a > bottleneck. That was the primary motivation behind ploop as far as I know. > > We've switched to ZFS on Linux around the time Ploop was announced and I > didn't have second thoughts since. ZFS really *is* in my experience the > best filesystem there is at the moment for this kind of deployment - > especially if you use dedicated SSDs for ZIL and L2ARC, although the > latter is less important. You will know what I'm talking about when you > try this on boxes with lots of CTs doing LAMP load - databases and their > synchronous writes are the real problem, which ZFS with dedicated ZIL > device solves. > > Also there is the ARC caching, which is smarter then linux VFS cache - > we're able to achieve about 99% of hitrate at about 99% of the time, > even under high loads. > > Having said all that, I recommend everyone to give ZFS a chance, but I'm > aware this is yet another out-of-mainline code and that doesn't suit > everyone that well. >
Are you using per-container ZVOL or something else? _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@openvz.org https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users
