On Oct 30, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Cuyler Dingwell wrote: > It would have been nice if performance didn't take a nose dive when nearing > (and not even at) capacity. In my case I would have preferred if the > necessary space was reserved and I got a space issue before degrading to the > point of uselessness.
UFS reserved 10% so that the algorithms can find some space for just this reason. Many (all?) file systems have similar issues at some point. For later versions of ZFS, the change in the allocation algorithm from first fit to best fit occurs when the pool is 96% full. I suppose for some hardware configurations this could be viewed as a "nose dive." Clearly, it is a change in work required. -- richard _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
