> Including performance considerations ? > For instance, if I have two Oracle Databases with two I/O profiles (TP versus > Batch)...what would be the best : > > 1) Two pools, each one on two LUNs. Each LUN distributed on n trays. > 2) One pool on one LUN. This LUN distributed on 2 x n trays. > 3) One pool striped on two LUNs. Each LUN distributed on n trays.
Good question. I'll bet there's no way to determine that without testing. It may be that the extra extra performance from having the additional lun(s) within a single pool outweighs any performance issues from having both workloads use the same storage. > With one pool, no problem. > > With n pools, my problem is the space used by the snapshot. With the > COW method of UFS snapshot I can put all backing-stores on one single > volume. With ZFS snapshot, it's conceptualy impossible. Yup. That's due to the differences in how those snapshots are implemented. In the future you may be able to add and remove storage from pools dynamically. In such a case, it could be possible to bring a disk into a pool, increase disk usage during a snapshot, delete the snapshot, then remove the disk. Disk removal would require copying data and be a performance hit. Then you go and do the same thing with the other pools. Today this isn't possible because you cannot migrate data off of a VDEV to reclaim the storage. -- Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. > _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
