Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS and Storage

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:58:02 -0700


On Jun 27, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Al Hopper wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Gregory Shaw wrote:

Yes, but the idea of using software raid on a large server doesn't
make sense in modern systems.  If you've got a large database server
that runs a large oracle instance, using CPU cycles for RAID is
counter productive.  Add to that the need to manage the hardware
directly (drive microcode, drive brownouts/restarts, etc.) and the
idea of using JBOD in modern systems starts to lose value in a big way.

You will detect any corruption when doing a scrub.  It's not end-to-
end, but it's no worse than today with VxVM.

The initial impression I got, after reading the original post, is that its
author[1] does not grok something fundamental about ZFS and/or how it
works!  Or does not understand that there are many CPU cycles in a modern
Unix box that are never taken advantage of.

It's clear to me that ZFS provides considerable, never before available,
features and facilities, and that any impact that ZFS may have on CPU or
memory utilization will become meaningless over time, as the # of CPU
cores increase - along with their performance.  And that average system
memory size will continue to increase over time.

Perhaps the author is taking a narrow view that ZFS will *replace*
existing systems.  I don't think that this will be the general case.
Especially in a large organization where politics and turf wars will
dominate any "technical" discussions and implementation decisions will be
made by senior management who are 100% buzzword compliant (and have
questionable technical/engineering skills).  Rather it will provide the
system designer with a hugely powerful *new* tool to apply in system
design.  And will challenge the designer to use it creatively and
effectively.

There is no such thing as the universal screw-driver.  Every toolbox has
tens of screwdrivers and tool designers will continue to dream about
replacing them all with _one_ tool.

[1] Sorry Gregory.

Regards,

Al Hopper  Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX.  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
           Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134  Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris.Org Community Advisory Board (CAB) Member - Apr 2005
                OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Feb 2006
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list

No insult taken.  I was trying to point out that many customers don't have 'free' cpu cycles, and that every little bit you take from their machine for subsystem control is that much real work the system will not be doing.

I think of the statement of "many cpu cycles in modern unix boxes that are never taken advantage of" in the similar vein of monitoring vendors:  "It's just another agent.  It won't take more than 5% of the box."

I think we'll let the customer decide on the above.  I've encountered both situations:  customers with large boxes with plenty of headroom, and customers that run 100% all day, every day and have no cycles that aren't dedicated to real work.

When I read as a ex-customer (e.g. not with Sun) that I've got to sacrifice cpu cycles in a software upgrade, it says to me that the upgrade will result in a slower system.

-----
Gregory Shaw, IT Architect
Phone: (303) 673-8273        Fax: (303) 673-8273
ITCTO Group, Sun Microsystems Inc.
1 StorageTek Drive MS 4382              [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
Louisville, CO 80028-4382                 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home)
"When Microsoft writes an application for Linux, I've Won." - Linus Torvalds

 

_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Reply via email to