If your database performance is dominated by sequential reads, ZFS may not be the best solution from a performance perspective. Because ZFS uses a write-anywhere layout, any database table which is being updated will quickly become scattered on the disk, so that sequential read patterns become random reads.
Of course, ZFS has other benefits, such as ease of use and protection from many sources of data corruption; if you want to use ZFS in this application, though, I'd expect that you will need substantially more raw I/O bandwidth than UFS or QFS (which update in place) would require. (If you have predictable access patterns to the tables, a QFS setup which ties certain tables to particular LUNs using stripe groups might work well, as you can guarantee that accesses to one table will not interfere with accesses to another.) As always, your application is the real test. ;-) This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
