We've discussed this in considerable detail, but the original
question remains unanswered: if an organization *must* use
multiple pools, is there an upper bound to avoid or a rate
of degradation to be considered?
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown| Always do right. This will gratify
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:22 AM, David Collier-Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've discussed this in considerable detail, but the original
question remains unanswered: if an organization *must* use
multiple pools, is there an upper bound to avoid or a rate
of degradation to be
Hi Chris, I would have thought that managing multiple pools (you mentioned 200)
would be an absolute administrative nightmare. If you give more details about
your storage needs like number of users, space required etc it might become
clearer what you're thinking of setting up.
Also, I see you
| Hi Chris, I would have thought that managing multiple pools (you
| mentioned 200) would be an absolute administrative nightmare. If you
| give more details about your storage needs like number of users, space
| required etc it might become clearer what you're thinking of setting
| up.
Every
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Chris Siebenmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, we are always going to have a certain number of logical pools of
storage space to manage. The question is whether to handle them as
separate ZFS pools or aggregate them into fewer ZFS pools and then
administer
| I don't think that's the case. What's wrong with setting both a quota
| and a reservation on your user filesystems?
In a shared ZFS pool situation I don't think we'd get anything from
using both. We have to use something to limit people to the storage that
they bought, and in at least S10 U4
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:55 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/08/2008 11:22:53 AM:
In our environment, the politically and administratively simplest
approach to managing our storage is to give each separate group at
least one ZFS pool of their own (into which
In our environment, the politically and administratively simplest
approach to managing our storage is to give each separate group at
least one ZFS pool of their own (into which they will put their various
filesystems). This could lead to a proliferation of ZFS pools on our
fileservers (my current
