> Generally, you choose your data pool config based on data size,
> redundancy, and performance requirements. If those are all satisfied with
> your single mirror, the only thing left for you to do is think about
> splitting your data off onto a separate pool due to better performance
> etc. (Bec
On Mar 24, 2011, at 7:23 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>> Generally, you choose your data pool config based on data size,
>> redundancy, and performance requirements. If those are all satisfied with
>> your single mirror, the only thing left for you to do is think about
>> splitting your data off onto a
Right, put some small (30GB or something trivial) disks in for root and
then make a nice fast multi-spindle pool for your data. If your 320s
are around the same performance as your 500s, you could stripe and
mirror them all into a big pool. ZFS will waste the extra 180 on the
bigger disks but
David Magda wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2011, at 09:26, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > The long term acceptance for ZFS depends on how Oracle will behave past the
> > announced Solaris 11 is released. If they don't Opensource the related ZFS,
> > they will harm the future of ZFS. If they Opensource it ag
I'm curious where ZFS development is going.
I've been reading through the lists, and watching Oracle, Nexenta, Illumos, and
OpenIndiana for signs of life.
The feeling I get is that while there is plenty of userland work being done,
there is next to nothing on ZFS development outside of the Orac
On Mar 25, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> I’m curious where ZFS development is going.
Forward :-)
> I’ve been reading through the lists, and watching Oracle, Nexenta, Illumos,
> and OpenIndiana for signs of life.
>
> The feeling I get is that while there is plenty of userland work
