Hello Mika, Tuesday, June 27, 2006, 10:19:05 AM, you wrote:
>>but there may not be filesystem space for double the data. >>Sounds like there is a need for a zfs-defragement-file utility MB> perhaps? >>Or if you want to be politically cagey about naming choice, perhaps, >>zfs-seq-read-optimize-file ? :-) MB> For Datawarehouse and streaming applications a MB> "seq-read-omptimization" could bring additional performance. For MB> "normal" databases this should be benchmarked... MB> This brings me back to another question. We have a production database, MB> that is cloned on every end of month for end-of-month processing MB> (currently with a feature on our storage array). MB> I'm thinking about a ZFS version of this task. Requirements: the MB> production database should not suffer from performance degradation, MB> whilst running the clone in parallel. As ZFS does not clone all the MB> blocks, I wonder how much the procution database will suffer from MB> sharing most of the data with the clone (concurrent access vs. caching) MB> Maybe we need a feature in ZFS to do a full clone (speak: copy all MB> blocks) inside the pool, if performance is an issue.... just like the MB> "Quick Copy" vs. "Shadow Image" -features on HDS Arrays... I belive you want a clone on different pool (so different disks) and that way you get separation. The most important problem with two DBs after current clone would be shared spindles. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
