Are both of you doing a umount/mount (or export/import, I guess) of the
source filesystem before both first and second test? Otherwise, there might
still be a fair bit of cached data left over from the first test, which would
give the 2nd an unfair advantage. I'm fairly sure unmounting a filesyst
Yes I did and it works ok enough for me.
Hardware:
Sempron 1600Mhz
1.5GB Ram
2x80GB sata mirror for the Debian host OS.
Currently I run vmware server 1.0 with 3 OpenBSD guests and one Solaris guest.
The Solaris guest has physical access to 3x160 pata and 3x320 sata drives set
up in two storage
> > Why not make a snapshots on a production and then send incremental
> > backups over net? Especially with a lot of files it should be MUCH
> > faster than rsync.
> >
> because its a ZFS limited solution, if the source is not ZFS it won't
> work, and i'm not sure how much faster incrementals woul
Dick Davies wrote:
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync.
That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a
certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webservers)
but a quick test with ~500Mb of data showed
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes. The architectural benefits of 'zfs send' over rsync only apply to
sending incremental changes. When sending a full backup, both schemes
have to traverse all the metadata and send all the data, so the *should*
be about the same speed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Robert and Daniel,
How did you put oracle on ZFS:
- one zpool+ one filesystem
- one zpool+ many filesystems
- a few zpools + one filesystem on each
- a few zpools + many filesystem on each
My goal was not to maximize tuning for ZFS but just compare ZFS vs.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 07:51:45PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote:
> On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync.
>
> That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a
> certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webs
Dick Davies wrote:
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync.
That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a
certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webservers)
but a quick test with ~500Mb of data showed
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync.
That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a
certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webservers)
but a quick test with ~500Mb of data showed the zfs send/recv
t
James Dickens wrote:
Why not make a snapshots on a production and then send incremental
backups over net? Especially with a lot of files it should be MUCH
faster than rsync.
because its a ZFS limited solution, if the source is not ZFS it won't
work, and i'm not sure how much faster incrementals
oab wrote:
Hi, I'm new to ZFS so I was wondering if it is possible to
concurrently share a ZFS storage pool between two separate machines.
No. You may be interested in this RFE:
4996041 want to directly access snapshots from multiple machines
--matt
__
oab wrote:
I'm new to ZFS so I was wondering if it is possible to concurrently
share a ZFS storage pool between two separate machines. I am currently
evaluating Sybase IQ
running on ZFS rather than raw devices(initial performance tests look
very promising) and need now to evaluate whether the IQ
On 8/30/06, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Jason,
Tuesday, August 29, 2006, 9:35:13 PM, you wrote:
JAH> On Aug 29, 2006, at 12:17 PM, James Dickens wrote:
>> ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
>>
>> I was thinking today about backing up filesystems, and came up with an
>> aweso
Hello Jason,
Tuesday, August 29, 2006, 9:35:13 PM, you wrote:
JAH> On Aug 29, 2006, at 12:17 PM, James Dickens wrote:
>> ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
>>
>> I was thinking today about backing up filesystems, and came up with an
>> awesome idea. Use the power of rsync and ZFS together.
>>
>> St
Hello Sanjeev,
Wednesday, August 30, 2006, 3:26:52 PM, you wrote:
SB> Hi,
SB> We were trying out the "compression=on" feature of ZFS and were
SB> wondering if it would make
SB> sense to have ZFS do compression only on a certain kind of files (or
SB> rather the otherway around).
SB> Our observ
Hello Louwtjie,
Wednesday, August 30, 2006, 12:04:57 PM, you wrote:
LB> What are the major differences between the "first" zfs shipped in
LB> 06/06 Solaris 10, compared to the latest built's of OpenSolaris?
Right now it's
1. ZFS hot spare support
2. raidz2
3. performance bug f
Hello przemolicc,
Wednesday, August 30, 2006, 9:49:33 AM, you wrote:
ppf> On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 06:52:17PM +0200, Daniel Rock wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>> >Hi all,
>> >
>> >Does anybody use Oracle on ZFS in production (but not as a
>> >background/testing database but as a front line)
I have seen the best oracle performance on ZFS by
1. match the zfs record size to oracle db_block_size
2. use the default 128k record size for oracle logs.
3. If possible use a separate zpool for the oracle logs.
This is especially true if your workload has a high
write component to it.
Two
Hi,
We were trying out the "compression=on" feature of ZFS and were
wondering if it would make
sense to have ZFS do compression only on a certain kind of files (or
rather the otherway around).
Our observation :
- If ZFS finds that it cannot achieve a certain amount of compression it
does not
Hi,
I'm new to ZFS so I was wondering if it is possible to concurrently share a
ZFS storage pool between two separate machines. I am currently evaluating
Sybase IQ
running on ZFS rather than raw devices(initial performance tests look very
promising) and need now to evaluate whether the IQ que
What are the major differences between the "first" zfs shipped in 06/06 Solaris
10, compared to the latest built's of OpenSolaris?
Will there be any major functionality released to 06/06 Solaris zfs via patches?
Will major zfs updates only be integrated into Solaris with the regular release
cyc
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 01:21:25PM -0600, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
> Hi Neal,
>
> The ZFS administration class, available in the fall, I think, covers
> basically the same content as the ZFS admin guide only with extensive
> lab exercises.
You could not give any ZFS class and advertise it as: "ZFS
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 06:52:17PM +0200, Daniel Rock wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Does anybody use Oracle on ZFS in production (but not as a
> >background/testing database but as a front line) ?
[ ... ]
Robert and Daniel,
How did you put oracle on ZFS:
- one zpool+
23 matches
Mail list logo
