On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Johan Hartzenberg wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Thanos McAtos wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> My problems are 2:
>>
>> 1) I don't know how to properly age a file-system. As already said, I need
>> traces of a decade's workload to properly do this, and to the best o
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Thanos McAtos wrote:
>
>
> My problems are 2:
>
> 1) I don't know how to properly age a file-system. As already said, I need
> traces of a decade's workload to properly do this, and to the best of my
> knowledge there is no easy way to do this automatically.
>
> 2
I followed Anton's idea but didn't see any difference.
My tests were repetitive PostMark runs, and each run was different. For
instance, I didn't let PostMark delete the files once it finished, deleted the
odd numbered ones by hand, put the rest in a different directory, re-run
PostMark that fa
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Thanos McAtos wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> I'm doing a course project to evaluate recovery time of RAID-Z.
>
> One of my tests is to examine the impact of aging on recovery speed.
>
> I've used PostMark to stress the file-system but I didn't observe any
> noticeable sl
Typically you want to do something like this:
Write 1,000,000 files of varying length.
Randomly select and remove 500,000 of those files.
Repeat (a) creating files, and (b) randomly removing files, until your file
system is full enough for your test, or you run out of time.
That's a pretty
Hello all.
I'm doing a course project to evaluate recovery time of RAID-Z.
One of my tests is to examine the impact of aging on recovery speed.
I've used PostMark to stress the file-system but I didn't observe any
noticeable slowdown.
Is there a better way to "age" a ZFS file-system?
Does ZFS
