On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:59 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Feb 26, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Eric D. Mudama wrote: >> 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.
Perhaps someone that has a SAMBA config large enough could make a test similar to the NFS set described in http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/nfs_zfs.html (note the date, 2007) -- richard ZFS storage and performance consulting at http://www.RichardElling.com ZFS training on deduplication, NexentaStor, and NAS performance http://nexenta-atlanta.eventbrite.com (March 16-18, 2010) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
