are showing me. Read performance OTOH is strange, zpool and systat both
reporting consistently an aggregated read speed of around 120MB/s during
the block read tests (which seems a bit slow for the drives - and indeed
systat reports the drives at less than 50% utilisation) but bonnie is only
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 13:29:51 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
are showing me. Read performance OTOH is strange, zpool and systat both
reporting consistently an aggregated read speed of around 120MB/s during
the block read tests (which seems a bit slow for
snip
Discover it alone. I told already enough about it but it results in attacks
from ZFS (and general new technology) fanatics.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To
First surprise, with only 4GB I had set primarycache=metadata,
you mean 4 GIGABYTES of memory is ONLY?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
If the rest of the world thought like you we would still be trying to invent
the wheel.
???
what wheel.
UFS is already invented. For LONG time. And UFS+softupdates works great.
much better than new trash
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing
On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 20:02:54 +0200 (CEST)
Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
First surprise, with only 4GB I had set primarycache=metadata,
you mean 4 GIGABYTES of memory is ONLY?
At less than €30 - yes I think only is reasonable, I'd have bought
more but 4GB
