On 8/22/06, Brian Kolaci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The customer will only accept officially supported options on this (i.e. lofs). Why exactly would lofs be a bad idea? What is the downside to lofs rather than directly using VxFS? With lofs they get the benefit of the ability to share one filesystem among multiple zones (not at the same mount point in the global zone). But is there anything that would increase/decrease performance by using lofs? Is there a major performance difference to running a database with its storage on lofs vs. VxFS vs. RAW?
Not with a database (yet), but I have been benchmarking the following: UFS in the global zone via a disk device (/dev/dsk/cntndnsn) UFS in the global zone via a metadevice (/dev/md/dsk/dmm) UFS in a non-global zone via LOFS and a metadevice ... and found very little statistical difference between global (UFS) and non-global (LOFS) performance... on the other hand, we have seen, under certain circumstances, a noticeable performance loss using metadevices. We are still analyzing to try to figure out _why_. -- Paul Kraus _______________________________________________ zones-discuss mailing list email@example.com