Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Nicolas Dorfsman wrote:
We need to think ZFS as ZFS, and not as a new filesystem ! I mean,
the whole concept is different.
Agreed.
So. What could be the best architecture ?
What is the problem?
With UFS, I used to have separate metadevices/LUNs for each
application. With ZFS, I thought it would be nice to use a separate
pool for each application.
Ick. It would be much better to have one pool, and a separate
filesystem for each application.
I agree but can you set performance boundaries based on the filesystem?
The pool level seems to be the place to do such things. For example
making sure an application has a set level of iops at its disposal.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
