Re: [zfs-discuss] eon or nexentacore or opensolaris
Hi Bogdan, I'd recommend the following RAM minimums for a fair balance of performance. 700Mb 32-bit 1Gb 64-bit -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] eon or nexentacore or opensolaris
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Andre Lue wrote: > Feel free to give EON a twirl. It will only cost you CD and the time to burn > and boot it. Or if you have a VM you can test it there. You'll know reallly > fast if it has enough of a framework for you to add the missing bits you need > or not. Hope that helps. Hi Andre. Thanks for the comment. What a reasonable minimal amount of RAM you would recommend? -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs list -t snapshots
I've been very inactive on opensolaris for a while and have forgotten a discouraging amount of what little I knew. I want to get back using the snapshot capability of zfs and am having a time figuring out how to use zfs list -t snapshot. man zfs shows: zfs list [-rH] [-o property[,...]] [-t type[,...]] [-s property] ... [-S property] ... [filesystem|volume|snapshot] So I guess I can give a final argument of a filesystem but not getting it right. zfs list -t snapshot (with no more args) shows only one pool and filesystem. I have several but all I see is a list like this: [...] z3/www/rea...@zfs-auto-snap:hourly-2009-06-14-20:00[...] z3/www/z...@zfs-auto-snap:frequent-2009-06-14-20:0 [...] [...] Everything in the list is under z3/www[...] But zfs list shows 3 different pools with filesystems under them rpool z2 z3. Does it mean no snapshots are being taken anywhere else? I may have set something up but can't remember... and not sure where to look and find out. Also what is a legal name to give to zfs list -t snapshot zfs list -t snapshot None of z3/www z3/www/reader rpool/exports rpool/ /rpool works. Man page specifies `filesystems|volume|snapshot' so what notation works? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?
Daniel Carosone wrote: This sounds like FUD. There's a comprehensive test suite, and it apparently passes. It's not exactly FUD. If you search the list archives, you'll find messages about multiple bugs in the 32-bit code. I strongly suspect that these have been fixed in the interim, but it _used_ to be a real problem. -- Carson ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?
This sounds like FUD. There's a comprehensive test suite, and it apparently passes. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?
There is a 32-bit and 64-bit version of the file system module available on x86. Given the quality of the development team, I'd be *very* surprised if such issues as suggested in your message exist. Jurgen's comment highlights the major issue - the lack of space to cache data when in 32-bit mode. Jim Litchfield --- Erik Trimble wrote: Jürgen Keil wrote: besides performance aspects, what`s the con`s of running zfs on 32 bit ? The default 32 bit kernel can cache a limited amount of data (< 512MB) - unless you lower the "kernelbase" parameter. In the end the small cache size on 32 bit explains the inferior performance compared to the 64 bit kernel. It's been a long time, but I seem to recall that the ZFS internals were written using values (ints, longs, etc) as found on 64-bit architectures, and that there was the possibility that many of them wouldn't operate properly in a 32-bit environment (i.e. size assumption mismatches on values that might silently drop/truncate or screw up calculations). I don't know if that's still correct (or if I'm getting it completely wrong), but the word was (2 years ago), that 32-bit ZFS might not just have performance problems, but might possibly be silently screwing you. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?
Jürgen Keil wrote: besides performance aspects, what`s the con`s of running zfs on 32 bit ? The default 32 bit kernel can cache a limited amount of data (< 512MB) - unless you lower the "kernelbase" parameter. In the end the small cache size on 32 bit explains the inferior performance compared to the 64 bit kernel. It's been a long time, but I seem to recall that the ZFS internals were written using values (ints, longs, etc) as found on 64-bit architectures, and that there was the possibility that many of them wouldn't operate properly in a 32-bit environment (i.e. size assumption mismatches on values that might silently drop/truncate or screw up calculations). I don't know if that's still correct (or if I'm getting it completely wrong), but the word was (2 years ago), that 32-bit ZFS might not just have performance problems, but might possibly be silently screwing you. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?
> besides performance aspects, what`s the con`s of > running zfs on 32 bit ? The default 32 bit kernel can cache a limited amount of data (< 512MB) - unless you lower the "kernelbase" parameter. In the end the small cache size on 32 bit explains the inferior performance compared to the 64 bit kernel. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] eon or nexentacore or opensolaris
Js.lists, My needs are: * Easy package management There is no pkgadd or ips included in EON. You can however add IPS and retrieve any of its available packages. * Easy upgrades EON is fairly easy to upgrade and the risk is low. All you have to do is preserve your previous image before upgrading. If the upgrade is not suitable go back to your previous image/release. You can preview the each new release by simply burning the image and booting, your current install would remain untouched. * Stability EON is sxce minimized so it is as stable as the matching snv_xxx release. You can also roll your own appliance to include only the bits you need * Ability to run Splunk Splunk not included but if there is an ips package or pkgadd version included on the snv dvd you could always add or include it if you roll your own appliance. Feel free to give EON a twirl. It will only cost you CD and the time to burn and boot it. Or if you have a VM you can test it there. You'll know reallly fast if it has enough of a framework for you to add the missing bits you need or not. Hope that helps. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?
Hello, the ZFS best practices guide at http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide tells: >* Run ZFS on a system that runs a 64-bit kernel besides performance aspects, what`s the con`s of running zfs on 32 bit ? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
