On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here I made the opposite observation: Just installed nv90 to a dated > notebook DELL D400; unmodified except of a 80GB 2.5" hard disk and - > of course ! - an extra strip of 1 GB of RAM; making it 1.2 GB > altogether. > Now, first I installed UFS; then wiped everything to install the full > ZFS-beauty. And I can't say that there was a noticeable difference > between the two in respect to subjective speed behaviour.
I've got a couple of identical old sparc boxes running nv90 - one on ufs, the other zfs. Everything else is the same. (SunBlade 150 with 1G of RAM, if you want specifics.) The zfs root box is significantly slower all around. Not only is initial I/O slower, but it seems much less able to cache data. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
