Hello Frank,
Tuesday, September 12, 2006, 9:41:05 PM, you wrote:
FC> It would be interesting to have a zfs enabled HBA to offload the checksum
FC> and parity calculations. How much of zfs would such an HBA have to
FC> understand?
That won't be end-to-end checksuming anymore, right?
That way you
zfs "hogs all the ram" under a sustained heavy write load. This is
being tracked by:
6429205 each zpool needs to monitor it's throughput and throttle heavy
writers
-r
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.open
Hello James,
Thursday, September 7, 2006, 8:58:10 PM, you wrote:
JD> with ZFS I have found that memory is a much greater limitation, even
JD> my dual 300mhz u2 has no problem filling 2x 20MB/s scsi channels, even
JD> with compression enabled, using raidz and 10k rpm 9GB drives, thanks
JD> to its
On Sep 5, 2006, at 06:45, Robert Milkowski wrote:Hello Wee,Tuesday, September 5, 2006, 10:58:32 AM, you wrote:WYT> On 9/5/06, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is simply not true. ZFS would protect against the same type oferrors seen on an individual drive as it would on a pool made of
Hello Wee,
Tuesday, September 5, 2006, 10:58:32 AM, you wrote:
WYT> On 9/5/06, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is simply not true. ZFS would protect against the same type of
>> errors seen on an individual drive as it would on a pool made of HW raid
>> LUN(s). It might be overki
