Your use case makes sense to me. There's nothing inherent in the design of
ZFS that would require 1GB memory per pool, but it's possible that the
implementation is faulty. There has not been a lot of work on optimizing
the many-pools use case. That said, I was able to create 100 pools on a
> On Jul 2, 2019, at 5:48 AM, nagy.att...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Glad to hear that! :)
> I'll try to be more verbose then.
> For example I have a machine with 44*4T SATA disks. Each of these disks have
> a zpool on them, so I have 44 zpools on the machine (with one zfs on each
> zpool).
> I put
On Wednesday, July 03, 2019, at 10:23 AM, George Melikov wrote:
> On your main question - ZoL 0.7.13, Debian, 1-2 pools <1TB in size definitely
> DON'T eat 1-1.5 GB RAM per pool only on import for me.
>
> IIRC ARC will grow only then you'll access (meta)data.
Well, these are in the range of
On Tuesday, July 02, 2019, at 11:28 PM, Richard Laager wrote:
> Why are you doing 44 single disk zpools? One big downside then is that
you have no redundancy.
I've tried to explain that above.
I have redundancy over multiple hosts. I replicate all objects between the
machines.
This way doing
On your main question - ZoL 0.7.13, Debian, 1-2 pools <1TB in size definitely DON'T eat 1-1.5 GB RAM per pool only on import for me. IIRC ARC will grow only then you'll access (meta)data. 02.07.2019, 15:49, "nagy.att...@gmail.com" :Glad to hear that! :)I'll try to be more verbose then.For example
