Hello David, Thursday, June 1, 2006, 11:35:41 PM, you wrote:
DJO> Just as a hypothetical (not looking for exact science here DJO> folks..), how would ZFS fare (in your educated opinion) in this sitation: DJO> 1 - Machine with 8 10k rpm SATA drives. High performance machine DJO> of sorts (ie dual proc, etc..let's weed out cpu/memory/bus DJO> bandwidth as much as possible from the equation). DJO> 2 - Workload is webserving, well - application serving. Java app DJO> server 9, various java applications requiring database access DJO> (mostly small tables/data elements, but millions and millions of rows). DJO> 3 - App server would be running in one zone, with a (NFS) DJO> mounted ZFS filesystem as storage. DJO> 4 - DB server (PgSQL) would be running in another zone, with a DJO> (NFS) mounted ZFS filesystem as storage. DJO> 5 - Multiple disk redundancy is needed. So, I'm assuming two DJO> raid-z pools of 3 drives each, mirrored is the solution. If DJO> people have a better suggestion, tell me! :P DJO> 6 - OS will be Sol10U2, OS/Root FS will be installed on mirrored DJO> drives, using UFS (my only choice..) DJO> Now, please eliminate CPU/RAM from this equation, assume the DJO> server has 4 cores of goodness powering it, and 32 gigs of ram. DJO> No, running on a ram-disk isn't what I'm asking for. :P DJO> * NFS being optional, just curious what the difference would be, DJO> as getting a T1000 + building an external storage box is an DJO> option. I just can't justify Sun's crazy storage pricing at the moment. DJO> How would ZFS perform (educated opinions, I realize I won't be DJO> getting exact answers) in this situation. I can't be more DJO> specific because I don't have the HW in front of me, I'm trying DJO> to get a feel for the "correct" solution before I make huge purchases. DJO> If anything else is needed, please feel free to ask! I guess there'll be lot of small random reads. It means that raid-z could be bad choice if you want highest read IO/s. Consider raid-10 - this should give you good redundancy and highes read IO/s. However writing can be slower than in raid-z. Actual redundancy will be better than what you proposed. Now database - this would be interesting. Maybe setting recordsize will be required. -- Best regards, Robert mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
