Lukas Pirl posted on Fri, 27 Nov 2015 23:30:05 +1300 as excerpted:
> On 11/27/2015 04:11 PM, Duncan wrote as excerpted:
>> My big hesitancy would be over that fact that very few will run or test
>> mixed-mode at TB scale filesystem level [s]o you're relatively more
>> likely to run into rarely see
On 11/27/2015 04:11 PM, Duncan wrote as excerpted:
> My big hesitancy would be over that fact that very few will run or test
> mixed-mode at TB scale filesystem level, and where they do, it's likely
> to be in ordered to work around the current (but set to soon be
> eliminated) metadata-only (no
On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 10:21:31 +0800
Qu Wenruo wrote:
> And some extra pros and cons due to fixed(4K) small(compared to 16K
> default) nodesize:
>
> + A little higher performance
>node/leaf size is restricted to sectorsize, smaller node/leaf,
>smaller range to lock.
>In our SSD test,
Lukas Pirl posted on Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:54:57 +1300 as excerpted:
> Dear list,
>
> if a larger RAID file system (say disk space of 8 TB in total) is
> created in mixed mode, what are the implications?
>
> From reading the mailing list and the Wiki, I can think of the
> following:
>
> + less ha
Lukas Pirl wrote on 2015/11/27 12:54 +1300:
Dear list,
if a larger RAID file system (say disk space of 8 TB in total) is
created in mixed mode, what are the implications?
From reading the mailing list and the Wiki, I can think of the following:
+ less hassle with "false positive" ENOSPC
I
Dear list,
if a larger RAID file system (say disk space of 8 TB in total) is
created in mixed mode, what are the implications?
>From reading the mailing list and the Wiki, I can think of the following:
+ less hassle with "false positive" ENOSPC
- data and metadata have to have the same replicati
