> From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms] > > > ZFS's problem is that it needs ALL the resouces for EACH pool ALL the > > time, and can't really share them well if it expects to keep performance > > from tanking... (no pun intended) > That's true, but on the flipside, if you don't have adequate resources > dedicated all the time, it means performance is unsustainable. Anything > which is going to do post-write dedup will necessarily have degraded > performance on a periodic basis. This is in *addition* to all your scrubs > and backups and so on. > > > AGAIN, you're assuming that all system resources are used all the time and > can't possibly go anywhere else. This is absolutely false. If someone is > running a system at 99% capacity 24/7, perhaps that might be a factual > statement. I'd argue if someone is running the system 99% all of the time, > the system is grossly undersized for the workload.
Well, here is my situation: I do IT for a company whose workload is very spiky. For weeks at a time, the system will be 99% idle. Then when the engineers have a deadline to meet, they will expand and consume all available resources, no matter how much you give them. So they will keep all systems 99% busy for a month at a time. After the deadline passes, they drop back down to 99% idle. The work is IO intensive so it's not appropriate for something like the cloud. > I'm gathering that this list in general has a lack of understanding of how > NetApp does things. If you don't know for a fact how it works, stop jumping > to conclusions on how you think it works. I know for a fact that short of the I'm a little confused by this rant. Cuz I didn't say anything about netapp. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
