Hello Richard, Thursday, November 2, 2006, 7:08:17 PM, you wrote:
REP> Robert Milkowski wrote: >> Thumpers come with Solaris pre-installed and already configured one pool. >> It's a collection of raid-z1 groups but some groups are smaller than the >> others. >> I'll reconfigure it anyway but I'm just curious what side-effects can there >> be with such a config? >> Any performance hit? All space will be used? REP> Here is some of our thoughts which led to the decision to pre-configure REP> what you see on thumper. REP> 1. Unallocated disk space doesn't exist. You will notice that all other REP> vendors who pre-install OSes on their systems ship with all of the space REP> allocated. For example, buy a Mac, do a df and all of the space can be REP> seen as allocated. Traditionally, Sun has delivered pre-installed systems REP> with unallocated space and if you wanted to use it, you had to search for REP> it, use format, etc. REP> 2. It takes only one command to destroy the zpool. This fits with #1. I'm REP> a strong advocate for #1. It is easier to destroy the pre-installed zpool REP> and recreate it than to search for space using format (or whatever). This REP> is especially true for a large JBOD like thumper. REP> 3. The data should be protected by default. REP> 4. The available space should be maximized, given constraint #3. Big-wide REP> raidz1 sets are not a good idea, hence the multiple sets. Incidentally, REP> while it doesn't really make much difference, wrt data availability, which REP> controller you use, we knew that people would freak out if we didn't spread REP> the vdevs across the controllers. REP> 5. We're not using a hot spare. This is a concession for #1. But if you REP> truly value data availability and retention, use a hot spare. REP> So, what you get, out of the box, is a large pool ready to be used. The pool REP> has respectable performance and data protection. But, if you need to configure REP> for more performance or data protection, then it is easy to do. REP> P.S. did you upgrade the OS? I'd consider the need for 'zpool upgrade' to be REP> a bug. on one thumper I reinstalled OS to S10U3 beta and imported default pool. On another I put snv_49 and imported pool. Then I destroyed pools and I'm experimenting with different configurations. I almost completely agree with your points 1-5, except that I think that having at least one hot spare by default would be better than having none at all - especially with SATA drives. I'll probably go with a config similar to default pool but with 2 hot spares. ps. and you (Sun) haven't configured hot spare as Thumper so far comes with U2 and there are no hot spares in U2 (and for strange reason thumper also comes with U1 - at least it's in GRUB menu I haven't tried to boot it - will try with another Thumper). -- 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
