Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:02:13PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
Joseph Mocker wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
The problem is that there are at least 3 knobs to turn (space, RAS, and
performance) and they all interact with each other.
Good point. then how about something mo
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:02:13PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> Joseph Mocker wrote:
> >Richard Elling wrote:
> >>The problem is that there are at least 3 knobs to turn (space, RAS, and
> >>performance) and they all interact with each other.
> >
> >Good point. then how about something more like
>
Joseph Mocker wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
The problem is that there are at least 3 knobs to turn (space, RAS, and
performance) and they all interact with each other.
Good point. then how about something more like
zpool bench raidz favor space disk1 ... diskN
zpool bench raidz favor per
Richard Elling wrote:
How hard would it be to write a tool like that? Something along the
lines of:
zpool bench raidz disk1 disk2 ... diskN
Let ZFS figure out the best way to set up your disks for you and tell
you how it should be laid out (and even offer a "just do it" flag that
will let it
On July 28, 2006 9:09:58 AM -0400 Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:14:50PM +0200, Patrick Bachmann wrote:
systems config? There are a lot of things you know better off-hand
about your system, otherwise you need to do some benchmarking, which
ZFS would have to
On July 28, 2006 2:14:50 PM +0200 Patrick Bachmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard already pointed out that you should split the devices into a number of
vdevs and not
pools.
I missed that. I guess I also didn't know what a vdev is, guess I know
even less about this "zfs thing" than I thou
Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:14:50PM +0200, Patrick Bachmann wrote:
systems config? There are a lot of things you know better off-hand
about your system, otherwise you need to do some benchmarking, which
ZFS would have to do too, if it was to give you the best performing
c
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:14:50PM +0200, Patrick Bachmann wrote:
> systems config? There are a lot of things you know better off-hand
> about your system, otherwise you need to do some benchmarking, which
> ZFS would have to do too, if it was to give you the best performing
> config.
How hard
Hey Frank,
Frank Cusack wrote:
Patrick Bachmann:
IMHO it is sufficient to just document this best-practice.
I disagree. The documentation has to AT LEAST state that more than 9
disks gives poor performance. I did read that raidz should use 3-9 disks
in the docs but it doesn't say WHY, so of
Frank Cusack wrote:
Patrick Bachmann:
Hey Bill,
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
Overly wide raidz groups seems to be an unfenced hole that people new to
ZFS fall into on a regular basis.
The man page warns against this but that doesn't seem to be sufficient.
Given that zfs has relatively few such tra
Patrick Bachmann:
Hey Bill,
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
Overly wide raidz groups seems to be an unfenced hole that people new to
ZFS fall into on a regular basis.
The man page warns against this but that doesn't seem to be sufficient.
Given that zfs has relatively few such traps, perhaps large rai
11 matches
Mail list logo
