Le 4 avr. 07 à 10:01, Paul Boven a écrit :
Hi everyone,
Swap would probably have to go on a zvol - would that be best
placed on
the n-way mirror, or on the raidz?
From the book of Richard Elling,
Shouldn't matter. The 'existence' of a swap device is sometimes
required.
If the devic
Now, given proper I/O concurrency (like recently improved NCQ in our
drivers) or SCSI CTQ,
I don't not expect the write caches to provide much performance
gains, if any, over the situation
with write caches off.
Write caches can be extremelly effective when dealing with drives
that do not
Le 5 avr. 07 à 08:28, Robert Milkowski a écrit :
Hello Matthew,
Thursday, April 5, 2007, 1:08:25 AM, you wrote:
MA> Lori Alt wrote:
Can write-cache not be turned on manually as the user is sure
that it is
only ZFS that is using the entire disk?
yes it can be turned on. But I don't know
Hi,
>>> - RAID-Z is _very_ slow when one disk is broken.
>> Do you have data on this? The reconstruction should be relatively cheap
>> especially when compared with the initial disk access.
>
> Also, what is your definition of "broken"? Does this mean the device
> appears as FAULTED in the pool
Hello Adam,
Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 11:41:58 PM, you wrote:
AL> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 11:04:06PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> If I stop all activity to x4500 with a pool made of several raidz2 and
>> then I issue spare attach I get really poor performance (1-2MB/s) on a
>> pool with lot
Hello Matthew,
Thursday, April 5, 2007, 1:08:25 AM, you wrote:
MA> Lori Alt wrote:
>>
>>> Can write-cache not be turned on manually as the user is sure that it is
>>> only ZFS that is using the entire disk?
>>>
>>>
>>> yes it can be turned on. But I don't know if ZFS would then know about it.
Lori Alt wrote:
Can write-cache not be turned on manually as the user is sure that it is
only ZFS that is using the entire disk?
yes it can be turned on. But I don't know if ZFS would then know about it.
I'd still feel more comfortably with it being turned off unless ZFS itself
does it.
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 11:04:06PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> If I stop all activity to x4500 with a pool made of several raidz2 and
> then I issue spare attach I get really poor performance (1-2MB/s) on a
> pool with lot of relatively small files.
Does that mean the spare is resilvering whe
Hello Adam,
Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 7:08:07 PM, you wrote:
AL> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 03:34:13PM +0200, Constantin Gonzalez wrote:
>> - RAID-Z is _very_ slow when one disk is broken.
AL> Do you have data on this? The reconstruction should be relatively cheap
AL> especially when compared with
Can write-cache not be turned on manually as the user is sure that it is
only ZFS that is using the entire disk?
yes it can be turned on. But I don't know if ZFS would then know about it.
I'd still feel more comfortably with it being turned off unless ZFS itself
does it.
But maybe someone
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:08:07AM -0700, Adam Leventhal wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 03:34:13PM +0200, Constantin Gonzalez wrote:
> > - RAID-Z is _very_ slow when one disk is broken.
>
> Do you have data on this? The reconstruction should be relatively cheap
> especially when compared with th
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:08:07AM -0700, Adam Leventhal wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 03:34:13PM +0200, Constantin Gonzalez wrote:
> > - RAID-Z is _very_ slow when one disk is broken.
>
> Do you have data on this? The reconstruction should be relatively cheap
> especially when compared with th
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 03:34:13PM +0200, Constantin Gonzalez wrote:
> - RAID-Z is _very_ slow when one disk is broken.
Do you have data on this? The reconstruction should be relatively cheap
especially when compared with the initial disk access.
Adam
--
Adam Leventhal, Solaris Kernel Developme
Hello Constantin,
Wednesday, April 4, 2007, 3:34:13 PM, you wrote:
CG> - RAID-Z is slow when writing, you basically get only one disk's bandwidth.
CG> (Yes, with variable block sizes this might be slightly better...)
No, it's not.
It's actually very fast for writing, in many cases it would be
Hi,
Manoj Joseph wrote:
> Can write-cache not be turned on manually as the user is sure that it is
> only ZFS that is using the entire disk?
yes it can be turned on. But I don't know if ZFS would then know about it.
I'd still feel more comfortably with it being turned off unless ZFS itself
does
Constantin Gonzalez wrote:
Do I still have the advantages of having the whole disk
'owned' by zfs, even though it's split into two parts?
I'm pretty sure that this is not the case:
- ZFS has no guarantee that someone will do something else with that other
partition, so it can't assume the r
Hi,
> Now that zfsboot is becoming available, I'm wondering how to put it to
> use. Imagine a system with 4 identical disks. Of course I'd like to use
you lucky one :).
> raidz, but zfsboot doesn't do raidz. What if I were to partition the
> drives, such that I have 4 small partitions that make
Hi everyone,
Now that zfsboot is becoming available, I'm wondering how to put it to
use. Imagine a system with 4 identical disks. Of course I'd like to use
raidz, but zfsboot doesn't do raidz. What if I were to partition the
drives, such that I have 4 small partitions that make up a zfsboot
partit
18 matches
Mail list logo
