There is a 32-bit and 64-bit version of the file system module
available on x86. Given the quality of the development team, I'd be *very*
surprised if such issues as suggested in your message exist.
Jurgen's comment highlights the major issue - the lack of space to
cache data when in 32-bit mode.
Jim Litchfield
-------------------
Erik Trimble wrote:
Jürgen Keil wrote:
besides performance aspects, what`s the con`s of
running zfs on 32 bit ?
The default 32 bit kernel can cache a limited amount of data
(< 512MB) - unless you lower the "kernelbase" parameter.
In the end the small cache size on 32 bit explains the inferior
performance compared to the 64 bit kernel.
It's been a long time, but I seem to recall that the ZFS internals
were written using values (ints, longs, etc) as found on 64-bit
architectures, and that there was the possibility that many of them
wouldn't operate properly in a 32-bit environment (i.e. size
assumption mismatches on values that might silently drop/truncate or
screw up calculations). I don't know if that's still correct (or if
I'm getting it completely wrong), but the word was (2 years ago), that
32-bit ZFS might not just have performance problems, but might
possibly be silently screwing you.
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
