On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Eric D. Mudama <edmud...@bounceswoosh.org>wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18 at 13:43, Tim wrote: > >> You look at the size of the drive and you take a set percentage off... >> If >> it's a "LUN" and it's so far off it still can't be added with the >> percentage that works across the board for EVERYTHING ELSE, you change >> the >> size of the LUN at the storage array or adapter. >> >> I know it's fun to pretend this is rocket science and impossible, but the >> fact remains the rest of the industry has managed to make it work. I >> have >> a REAL tough time believing that Sun and/or zfs is so deficient it's an >> insurmountable obstacle for them. >> > > If, instead of having ZFS manage these differences, a user simply > created slices that were, say, 98% as big as the average number of > sectors in a XXX GB drive... would ZFS enable write cache on that > device or not? > > I thought I'd read that ZFS didn't use write cache on slices because > it couldn't guarantee that the other slices were used in a > write-cache-safe fashion, would that apply to cases where no other > slices were allocated? > It will disable it by default, but you can manually re-enable it. That's not so much the point though. ZFS is supposed to be filesystem/volume manager all-in-one. When I have to start going through format every time I add a drive, it's a non-starter, not to mention it's a kludge. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
