> From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us]
>
> The disk write cache helps with the step where data is
> sent to the disks since it is much faster to write into the disk write
> cache than to write to the media. Besides helping with unburdening
> the I/O channel,
Having the di
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Kroenert
>
> Bottom line is that at 75 IOPS per spindle won't impress many people,
> and that's the sort of rate you get when you disable the disk cache.
It's the same rate that you get
Ed -
Simple test. Get onto a system where you *can* disable the disk cache,
disable it, and watch the carnage.
Until you do that, you can pose as many interesting theories as you like.
Bottom line is that at 75 IOPS per spindle won't impress many people,
and that's the sort of rate you get w
Hi,
instead of slicing and/or partitioning a drive one can also limit the
capacity the drive reports the controller and OS. This is what oem's
do to ensure that drives from different manufacturers and revisions
all have the same capacity.
Different routes need to be followed for (S)ATA and SCSI/SA
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
That's my argument, unless somebody can tell me where my logic is wrong.
Disk write cache offers zero benefit. And disk read cache only offers
benefit in unusual cases that I would call esoteric.
I was agreeing with your email until it came to this
> From: Jim Dunham [mailto:james.dun...@oracle.com]
>
> ZFS only uses system RAM for read caching,
If your email address didn't say oracle, I'd just simply come out and say
you're crazy, but I'm trying to keep an open mind here... Correct me where
the following statement is wrong: ZFS uses sys
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Brandon High
>>
>> Write caching will be disabled on devices that use slices. It can be
>> turned back on by using format -e
>
> My experience has been, despite wha
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Brandon High
>
> Write caching will be disabled on devices that use slices. It can be
> turned back on by using format -e
My experience has been, despite what the BPG (or whatever) says, this
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Yaverot
>
> >I recommend:
> >When creating your new pool, use slices of the new disks, which are 99%
of
> >the size of the new disks instead of using the whole new disks. Because
> >this is a
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Yaverot wrote:
> 1. While performance isn't my top priority, doesn't using slices make a
> significant difference?
Write caching will be disabled on devices that use slices. It can be
turned back on by using format -e
> 2. Doesn't snv_134 that I'm running already
I questioning these recommendations to increase my understanding.
--- opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
>From: Edward Ned Harvey
>> From: Yaverot
>> rpool remains 1% inuse. tank reports 100% full (with 1.44G free),
>I recommend:
>When creating your new pool, use sli
11 matches
Mail list logo
