On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Thanos McAtos <mca...@ics.forth.gr> wrote:
> > > My problems are 2: > > 1) I don't know how to properly age a file-system. As already said, I need > traces of a decade's workload to properly do this, and to the best of my > knowledge there is no easy way to do this automatically. > > 2) I know very little of ZFS. To be honest, I have no idea what to expect. > Maybe I'm doing aging the wrong way or ZFS suffers from aging when is has to > allocate blocks for writes/updates and not on recovery. > > I would expect the fill level of the pool to be a much bigger factor than the "age" of the file system. However an old but very empty file system may have its data blocks spread far apart (large gaps in between). So a "new" empty file system may have all its allocated data blocks at the start of a disk, and a "old" empty file system may be scattered all over the disk. However, since we are talking about more space than data, and ZFS only "rebuilds" the blocks which are in use, this is a special case and while the difference my be relatively large, it will likely be small real difference. But I am speculating. The CoW nature of ZFS will probably make it very hard to consistently create a "fragmented" file system!!! -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
