On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 04:05:53PM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
> I just thought to report back to the list, that ZFS is working out well.
>
> I asked a while ago about other's opinions, and got all thumbs up.
>
> We deployed a setup with Sun T2000 running Solaris 10u3 (11/06)
> and a pair of Sun 35
On Jul 5, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Dale, I hope you have the time to supply a couple more numbers.
Right now our migration to Cyrus is still in the development phase,
with the servers just hosting dev accounts as we tweak Cyrus and
adapt our other infrastructure to the pending
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 09:10:51AM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
>
> More importantly what does iostat -cxn 5 look like during peak?
> For us this is 1100-1300 hours hitting about 40%. Of course this
> is summertime usage so things are a bit slack here with most
> students being home, not so much dail
Dale, I hope you have the time to supply a couple more numbers.
What do your sar and zpool iostat numbers look like?
More importantly what does iostat -cxn 5 look like during peak?
For us this is 1100-1300 hours hitting about 40%. Of course this
is summertime usage so things are a bit slack her
On Jul 4, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Sun recommends against the 3511 in most literature I read, saying
> that the SATA drives
> are slower and not going to handle as much IOPS loading. But they
> are working out okay
> for you? Perhaps it's just vendor upsell to the more expensi
On Jul 4, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Dale Ghent wrote:
>> each with a zpool comprising of a mirror between two se3511s on our
>> SAN...
> Sun recommends against the 3511 in most literature I read, saying that
> the SATA drives
> are slower and not going to handle as much IOPS loading
Dale Ghent wrote:
> each with a zpool comprising of a mirror between two se3511s on our
> SAN...
Sun recommends against the 3511 in most literature I read, saying that
the SATA drives
are slower and not going to handle as much IOPS loading. But they are
working out okay
for you? Perhaps it's
Dale Ghent wrote:
> Sorry for the double reply, but by the way, what sort of compression
ratio are you seeing on your ZFS filesystems?
{cyrus1:vf5:136} zfs get compressratio cyrus/mail
NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
cyrus/mail compressratio 1.26x
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Dale Ghent wrote:
; On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:05 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
;
; > We currently have 27,323 accounts on it, and it is performing
; > very well, with atime=off and compression=on.
;
; Sorry for the double reply, but by the way, what sort of compression
; ratio are you seei
On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:05 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
> We currently have 27,323 accounts on it, and it is performing
> very well, with atime=off and compression=on.
Sorry for the double reply, but by the way, what sort of compression
ratio are you seeing on your ZFS filesystems?
/dale
--
Dale Ghent
On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:05 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
> I just thought to report back to the list, that ZFS is working out
> well.
>
> I asked a while ago about other's opinions, and got all thumbs up.
>
> We deployed a setup with Sun T2000 running Solaris 10u3 (11/06)
> and a pair of Sun 3510FC arrays
I just thought to report back to the list, that ZFS is working out well.
I asked a while ago about other's opinions, and got all thumbs up.
We deployed a setup with Sun T2000 running Solaris 10u3 (11/06)
and a pair of Sun 3510FC arrays mirroring in a hybrid HA RAID
5+1+0 setup that I can describe
12 matches
Mail list logo
