Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 10:24 -0700, Michael Johnson wrote:
>> I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to
>>double-check
>> how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says
>you
>> can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen
>>someone
>> claim that you need at least 4 GB. Does anyone here know how much RAM
>FreeBSD
>> would need in this case?
>>
>> Likewise, how much RAM does OpenSolaris need for stability when running ZFS?
>> How about other OpenSolaris-based OSs, like NexentaStor? (My searching
>found
>> that OpenSolaris recommended at least 1 GB, while NexentaStor said 2 GB was
>> okay, 4 GB was better. I'd be interested in hearing your input, though.)
>
>1GB isn't enough for a real system. 2GB is a bare minimum. If you're
>going to use dedup, plan on a *lot* more. I think 4 or 8 GB are good
>for a typical desktop or home NAS setup. With FreeBSD you may be able
>to get away with less. (Probably, in fact.)
Fortunately, I don't need deduplication; it's kind of a nice feature, but the
extra RAM it would take isn't worth it.
Just curious, why do you say I'd be able to get away with less RAM in FreeBSD
(as compared to NexentaStor, I'm assuming)? I don't know tons about the OSs in
question; is FreeBSD just leaner in general?
>> If it matters, I'm currently planning on RAID-Z2 with 4x500GB consumer-grade
>> SATA drives. (I know that's not a very efficient configuration, but I'd
>>really
>> like the redundancy of RAID-Z2 and I just don't need more than 1 TB of
>>available
>> storage right now, or for the next several years.) This is on an AMD64
>>system,
>> and the OS in question will be running inside of VirtualBox, with raw access
>>to
>> the drives.
>
>Btw, instead of RAIDZ2, I'd recommend simply using stripe of mirrors.
>You'll have better performance, and good resilience against errors. And
>you can grow later as you need to by just adding additional drive pairs.
A pair of mirrors would be nice, but would only protect against 100% of one
drive failing, and 50% of two-drive failures. Performance is less important to
me than redundancy; this setup won't be seeing tons of disk activity, but I
want
it to be as reliable as possible.
Michael
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
