If I'm not mistaken, L2ARC cached blocks will not get striped across more
than one device in your L2ARC, which means your L2ARC only helps for
latency, and not throughput.
Regardless of wither it does or not it can still help overall system
throughput by avoiding having to read from slower (may
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
But one more thing:
If I'm not mistaken, L2ARC cached blocks will not get striped across more
than one device in your L2ARC, which means your L2ARC only helps for
latency, and not throughput. (I'm really not certain about this, but I
think so.) Given the stated usage s
- "Mihai" skrev:
hello all,
I have the following scenario of using zfs.
- I have a HDD images that has a NTFS partition stored in a zfs dataset in a
file called images.img
Wouldn't it be better to use zfs volumes? AFAIK they are way faster than using
files
Vennlige hilsener / Best
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Gabriel
>
> If you are reading blocks from your initial hdd images (golden images)
> frequently enough, and you have enough memory on your system, these
> blocks will end up on the ARC (
Mihai wrote:
hello all,
I have the following scenario of using zfs.
- I have a HDD images that has a NTFS partition stored in a zfs
dataset in a file called images.img
- I have X physical machines that boot from my server via iSCSI from
such an image
- Every time a machine ask for a boot reque
Hi Richard,
Thank you very much for your quick response.
SB
Richard Elling wrote:
> Simon Bonilla wrote:
>>
>> Hi Team,
>>
>> We have a customer who wants to implement the following architecture:
>>
>> - Solaris 10
>>
>> - Sun Cluster 3.2
>>
>> - Oracle RAC
>>
>
> Oracle does not support RAC on
Simon Bonilla wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
>
> We have a customer who wants to implement the following architecture:
>
> - Solaris 10
>
> - Sun Cluster 3.2
>
> - Oracle RAC
>
Oracle does not support RAC on ZFS, nor will ZFS work as a
shared, distributed file system. If you want a file system, then
QFS is
Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/16/2007 05:29:05 PM:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 05:13:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Why it was considered a valid data column in its current state is
> > anyone's guess.
> >
>
> This column is precise and valid. It represents the am
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 05:13:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Why it was considered a valid data column in its current state is
> anyone's guess.
>
This column is precise and valid. It represents the amount of space
uniquely referenced by the snapshot, and therefore the amount of space
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/16/2007 04:57:43 PM:
> one pool is mirror on 300gb dirives and the other is raidz1 on 7 x
> 143gb drives.
>
> I did make clone of my zfs file systems with their snaps and something is
not
> right, sizes do not match... anyway here is what I have:
>
> [17:50:32] [
10 matches
Mail list logo
