Darren:
> > With all of the talk about performance problems due to
> > ZFS doing a sync to force the drives to commit to data
> > being on disk, how much of a benefit is this - especially
> > for NFS?
I would not call those things as problems, more like setting
proper expectations.
My unde
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:24:12AM -0700, Marion Hakanson wrote:
zpool create mirror c0t2d0 c0t3d0 mirror c0t0d0s5 c0t1d0s5
Is this allowed? Is it stupid? Will performance be so bad/bizarre that
it should be avoided at all costs? Anybody tried it?
Yes, it's a
On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:24:12AM -0700, Marion Hakanson wrote:
>
> zpool create mirror c0t2d0 c0t3d0 mirror c0t0d0s5 c0t1d0s5
>
> Is this allowed? Is it stupid? Will performance be so bad/bizarre that
> it should be avoided at all costs? Anybody tried it?
>
Yes, it's allowed, but it's de
Folks,
I realize this thread has run its course, but I've got a variant of
the original question: What performance problems or anomalies might
one see if mixing both whole disks _and_ slices within the same pool?
I have in mind some Sun boxes (V440, T2000, X4200) with four internal
drives. Typi
Ahh, interesting information. Thanks folks, I'm have a better
understanding of this now.
--joe
Jeff Bonwick wrote:
is zfs any less efficient with just using a portion of a
disk versus the entire disk?
As others mentioned, if we're given a whole disk (i.e. no slice
is specified) then we
On Aug 3, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Darren Dunham wrote:
And it's portable. If you use whole disks, you can export the
pool from one machine and import it on another. There's no way
to export just one slice and leave the others behind...
I got the impression that the export command exported the con
> > And it's portable. If you use whole disks, you can export the
> > pool from one machine and import it on another. There's no way
> > to export just one slice and leave the others behind...
>
> I got the impression that the export command exported the contents
> of the pool, not the underlyin
Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Additionally keep in mind that outer region of a disk is much faster.
> So if you want to put OS and then designate rest of the disk for
> application then probably putting ZFS on a slice beginning on cyl 0 is
> best in most scenarios.
This has the a
On Aug 3, 2006, at 8:17 AM, Jeff Bonwick wrote:
ZFS will try to enable write cache if whole disks is given.
Additionally keep in mind that outer region of a disk is much faster.
And it's portable. If you use whole disks, you can export the
pool from one machine and import it on another. Th
> With all of the talk about performance problems due to
> ZFS doing a sync to force the drives to commit to data
> being on disk, how much of a benefit is this - especially
> for NFS?
It depends. For some drives it's literally 10x.
> Also, if I was lucky enough to have a working prestoserv
> ca
Jeff Bonwick wrote:
is zfs any less efficient with just using a portion of a
disk versus the entire disk?
As others mentioned, if we're given a whole disk (i.e. no slice
is specified) then we can safely enable the write cache.
With all of the talk about performance problems due to
ZF
> is zfs any less efficient with just using a portion of a
> disk versus the entire disk?
As others mentioned, if we're given a whole disk (i.e. no slice
is specified) then we can safely enable the write cache.
One other effect -- probably not huge -- is that the block placement
algorithm is mos
> ZFS will try to enable write cache if whole disks is given.
>
> Additionally keep in mind that outer region of a disk is much faster.
And it's portable. If you use whole disks, you can export the
pool from one machine and import it on another. There's no way
to export just one slice and leave
Hello Joseph,
Thursday, August 3, 2006, 2:02:28 AM, you wrote:
JM> I know this is going to sound a little vague but...
JM> A coworker said he read somewhere that ZFS is more efficient if you
JM> configure pools from entire disks instead of just slices of disks. I'm
JM> curious if there is any m
Joseph Mocker wrote:
I know this is going to sound a little vague but...
A coworker said he read somewhere that ZFS is more efficient if you
configure pools from entire disks instead of just slices of disks. I'm
curious if there is any merit to this?
If the entire disk is used in a zpool th
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Joseph Mocker wrote:
> The use case that we had been discussing was something to the effect of
> building a 2 disk system, install the OS on slice 0 of disk 0 and make the
> rest of the disk available for 1/2 of a zfs mirror. Then disk 1 would probably
> be partitioned the same
I know this is going to sound a little vague but...
A coworker said he read somewhere that ZFS is more efficient if you
configure pools from entire disks instead of just slices of disks. I'm
curious if there is any merit to this?
The use case that we had been discussing was something to the e
17 matches
Mail list logo
