Joseph Mocker schrieb: > Hello, > > I haven't seen this discussed before. Any pointers would be appreciated. > > I'm curious, if I have a set of disks in a system, is there any benefit > or disadvantage to breaking the disks into multiple pools instead of a > single pool? > > Does multiple pools cause any additional overhead for ZFS, for example? > Can it cause cache contention/starvation issues? > > Thanks... > > --joe > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Currently, I've two pools in my system: one for live data and the other for backup. When doing large backups (i.e. tar'ing one directory hierarchy from live to backup), I've seen severe memory pressure on the system - as if both pools were competing for memory... Maybe with zfs boot/root becoming available, I'll add a third pool for the OS. From what I've seen, zfs makes very much sense for boot/root if you are using live upgrade. I like the idea of having OS and data separated, but on a system with only two disks, I'd definitely go for a single mirrored zpool where both OS and data reside. I guess sharing one physical disk among multiple zpools could have severe negative impacts during concurrent accesses. But I really have no in-depth knowledge to say for sure. Maybe somebody else can comment on this... - Thomas _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
