On Thu, Feb 25 at 20:21, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Alastair Neil wrote:
I do not know and I don't think anyone would deploy a system in that way with
UFS.
This is the model that is imposed in order to take full advantage of zfs
advanced
features such as snapshots, encryption and compression and I know many
universities
in particular are eager to adopt it for just that reason, but are stymied by
this
problem.
It was not really a serious question but it was posed to make a
point. However, it would be interesting to know if there is another
type of filesystem (even on Linux or some other OS) which is able to
reasonably and efficiently support 16K mounted and exported file
systems.
Eventually Solaris is likely to work much better for this than it
does today, but most likely there are higher priorities at the
moment.
I agree with the above, but the best practices guide:
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#ZFS_file_service_for_SMB_.28CIFS.29_or_SAMBA
states in the SAMBA section that "Beware that mounting 1000s of file
systems, will impact your boot time". I'd say going from a 2-3 minute
boot time to a 4+ hour boot time is more than just "impact". That's
getting hit by a train.
Might be useful for folks, if the above document listed a few concrete
datapoints of boot time scaling with the number of filesystems or
something similar.
--eric
--
Eric D. Mudama
edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
