On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, aurfalien wrote:
On Jul 16, 2013, at 2:41 AM, Shane Ambler wrote:
I doubt that you would save any ram having the os on a non-zfs drive as
you will already be using zfs chances are that non-zfs drives would only
increase ram usage by adding a second cache. zfs uses it's own cache
system and isn't going to share it's cache with other system managed
drives. I'm not actually certain if the system cache still sits above
zfs cache or not, I think I read it bypasses the traditional drive cache.
For zfs cache you can set the max usage by adjusting vfs.zfs.arc_max
that is a system wide setting and isn't going to increase if you have
two zpools.
Tip: set the arc_max value - by default zfs will use all physical ram
for cache, set it to be sure you have enough ram left for any services
you want running.
Have you considered using one or both SSD drives with zfs? They can be
added as cache or log devices to help performance.
See man zpool under Intent Log and Cache Devices.
This is a very interesting point.
In terms if SSDs for cache, I was planning on using a pair of Samsung Pro 512GB
SSDs for this purpose (which I haven't bought yet).
But I tire of buying stuff, so I have a pair of 40GB Intel SSDs for use as sys
disks and several Intel 160GB SSDs lying around that I can combine with the
existing 256GB SSDs for a cache.
Then use my 36x3TB for the beasty NAS.
Agreed that 256G mirrored SSDs are kind of wasted as system drives. The
40G mirror sounds ideal.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
