Hi,
after some unscheduled reboots (to put it lightly), I've got an interesting
setup on my notebook's zfs partition:
setup: simple zpool, no raid or mirror, a couple of zfs partitions, one zvol
for swap. /foo is one such partition, /foo/bar the directory with the issue.
directly after the reboo
Hello zfs-discuss,
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-June/msg03623.html
Are they so afraid they have to write such bullshit!?
--
Best regards,
Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://milek.blogspot.com
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
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 machi
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello zfs-discuss,
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-June/msg03623.html
Are they so afraid they have to write such bullshit!?
The most annoying part to me is this bit:
"2 . ZFS does not support the necessary extended attributes and ACLs to
enable the
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
Darren J Moffat stated:
< Robert Milkowski wrote:
< >Hello zfs-discuss,
< >
< > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-June/msg03623.html
< >
< > Are they so afraid they have to write such bullshit!?
<
< The most annoying part to me is this bit:
<
< "2 . ZFS does not support the necess
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?
Memory is always good; but it is *virtual* memory (address space) which
matters most.
The 32 bit kernel only has
Darren J Moffat wrote:
The rest is just uninformed licensing related fud.
More fool them for not getting it!
Indeed. There was a followup to that email that went
through and debunked that posting along exactly those
lines and to which the OP did not respond.
Darren
_
Sean McGrath - Sun Microsystems Ireland wrote:
Some do, see this followup:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-June/msg04266.html
This poster even corrects himself on the Trusted Solaris front with another
follow up at:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-June/msg0449
Hi,
does anybody successfully try the option sharenfs=on for an zfs filesystem
with 1 users? On my system (sol10u2), that is not only awfully slow but
does also not work smoothly. I did run the following commands:
zpool create -R /test test c2t600C0FF00988193CD00CE701d0s0
zfs creat
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
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
Unfortunately, truncating files doesn't work either.
> > Eric Schrock wrote:
> > > You don't need to grow the pool. You should always be able truncate the
> > > file without consuming more space, provided you don't have snapshots.
>[..] In the meantime, you can
> truncate large files to free up s
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
On 7/6/06, H.-J. Schnitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The zpool export command required about 30 minutes to finish.
And the import command, after it did some silent work for 45 minutes,
just reported a lot of error messages:
...
cannot share 'test/home/4643': error reading /etc/dfs/sharetab
It
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
We have done some work to make this bearable on boot by introction of
the undocumented SHARE_NOINUSE_CHECK environment variable. This
disables an expensive check which verifies that the filesystem is not
already shared. Since we're doing the initial shares on the system, we
can safely disable thi
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
> But for ZFS, it has been said often that it currently performs
> much better with a 64bit address space, such as that with
> Opterons and other AMD64 CPUs. I think this would play a
> bigger part in a ZFS server performing well than just MHZ
> and cache size.
I will no doubt be selecting a 64-bi
>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 (
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
with ZFS the primary driver isn't cpu, its "how many drives can
one attach" :-) I use a 8 sata and 2 pata port
http://supermicro.com/Aplus/motherboard/Opteron/nForce/H8DCE.cfm
But there was a v20z I could steal registered ram and cpus from.
H8DCE can't use the SATA HBA Framework which only suppo
Siegfried Nikolaivich wrote:
But for ZFS, it has been said often that it currently performs
much better with a 64bit address space, such as that with
Opterons and other AMD64 CPUs. I think this would play a
bigger part in a ZFS server performing well than just MHZ
and cache size.
I will no doub
question is ZFS uses COW(copy on write), does this mean it will
double usage of capacity or waste the capacity?
What COW really do? No mirror also has COW?
Please help me, thanks.
Robert
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://
Robert Chen wrote:
> question is ZFS uses COW(copy on write), does this mean it will
> double usage of capacity or waste the capacity?
>
> What COW really do? No mirror also has COW?
>
> Please help me, thanks.
>
> Robert
>
> ___
> zfs-discuss mailing lis
28 matches
Mail list logo
