Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
offtopic query :
How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
The real problem is VA fragmentation, not consumption. Over time, ZFS's
heavy use of the VM system causes the address sp
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
offtopic query :
How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
The real problem is VA fragmentation, not consumption. Over time, ZFS's
heavy use
>Interesting, I saw and helped debug a very similar sounding problem
>with VxVM and VxFS on an E10k with 15TB of EMC storage and 10,000 NFS
>shares years ago. This was on Solaris 2.6 so even though it was
>UltraSPARC CPU there was still only a 32bit address space.
>
>Jeff Bonwick supplied th
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 09:50:47AM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Eric Schrock wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
> >> offtopic query :
> >> How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
> >>
> >
> >The real problem is VA fragmentation, not co
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
offtopic query :
How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
The real problem is VA fragmentation, not consumption. Over time, ZFS's
heavy use of the VM system causes the address space to
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
>
>offtopic query :
>How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
>
The real problem is VA fragmentation, not consumption. Over time, ZFS's
heavy use of the VM system causes the address space to become
fragmente
>Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
>> Steven Sim wrote:
>>
>>> Casper;
>>>
>>> Does this mean it would be a good practice to say increase the amount
>>> of memory and/or swap space we usually recommend if the customer
>>> intends to use ZFS very heavily?
>>
>>
>> ZFS doesn't necessarily use more memory (
Hi;
I've just went through the following URL
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/roch?entry=the_dynamics_of_zfs
For those interested, I got to the above URL from
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/Solaris_Internals_and_Performance_FAQ
Under the section ("DOES ZFS REALLY USE MORE RAM
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Steven Sim wrote:
Casper;
Does this mean it would be a good practice to say increase the amount
of memory and/or swap space we usually recommend if the customer
intends to use ZFS very heavily?
ZFS doesn't necessarily use more memory (physical or virtual) than UFS
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006, Siegfried Nikolaivich wrote:
[ ... reformatted ...]
> Hello,
>
> What kind of x86 CPU does ZFS prefer? In particular, what kind of CPU
> is optimal when using RAID-Z with a large number of disks (8)?
BTW: I've read the existing followups (all good stuff!).
64-bit AMD
> Doe
Darren J Moffat writes:
> Steven Sim wrote:
> > Casper;
> >
> > Does this mean it would be a good practice to say increase the amount of
> > memory and/or swap space we usually recommend if the customer intends to
> > use ZFS very heavily?
>
> ZFS doesn't necessarily use more memory (p
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 01:57 -0700, Siegfried Nikolaivich wrote:
> What kind of x86 CPU does ZFS prefer? In particular, what kind of CPU
> is optimal when using RAID-Z with a large number of disks (8)?
An additional point here: to an extent this depends on what you're going
to be using the system
>Casper;
>
>Does this mean it would be a good practice to say increase the amount of
>memory and/or swap space we usually recommend if the customer intends to
>use ZFS very heavily?
Memory is always good; but it is *virtual* memory (address space) which
matters most.
The 32 bit kernel only has
Steven Sim wrote:
Casper;
Does this mean it would be a good practice to say increase the amount of
memory and/or swap space we usually recommend if the customer intends to
use ZFS very heavily?
ZFS doesn't necessarily use more memory (physical or virtual) than UFS
it needs more VM *address
Casper;
Does this mean it would be a good practice to say increase the amount of
memory and/or swap space we usually recommend if the customer intends to
use ZFS very heavily?
Sorry if this is a dumb question!
Warmest Regards
Steven Sim
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
What kind of x86
>Hello,
>
>What kind of x86 CPU does ZFS prefer? In particular, what kind of CPU is
>optimal when using RAID-Z with a large number of disks (8)?
>
>Does L2 cache size play a big role, 256kb vs 512kb vs 1MB? Are there any
>performance improvements
when using a dual core or quad processor machi
Siegfried Nikolaivich wrote:
Hello,
What kind of x86 CPU does ZFS prefer? In particular, what kind of CPU is
optimal when using RAID-Z with a large number of disks (8)?
My experience is that for hardware that will be used in a
server orientated role, there are a lot of considerations
tha
Hello,
What kind of x86 CPU does ZFS prefer? In particular, what kind of CPU is
optimal when using RAID-Z with a large number of disks (8)?
Does L2 cache size play a big role, 256kb vs 512kb vs 1MB? Are there any
performance improvements when using a dual core or quad processor machine?
I am
18 matches
Mail list logo
