On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 04:29:39PM -0700, Dearl D. Neal wrote:
> I appreciate the response.. it's the best I have received so far.
> From further testing today, I am thoroughly confused. This morning I
> was seeing par results with ufs an zfs for the fileserver workload.
> The db workloads were abo
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 06:07:06AM -0700, Dearl Neal wrote:
> I have been testing the performance of zfs vs. ufs using filebench.
> The setup is a v240, 4GB RAM, 2...@1503mhz, 1 320GB _SAN_ attached LUN,
> and using a ZFS mirrored root disk. Our SAN is a top notch NVRAM
> based SAN.
Can you give
Dearl Neal wrote:
I have been testing the performance of zfs vs. ufs using filebench. The setup
is a v240, 4GB RAM, 2...@1503mhz, 1 320GB _SAN_ attached LUN, and using a ZFS
mirrored root disk. Our SAN is a top notch NVRAM based SAN. There are lots of
discussions using ZFS with SAN based st
