[clug] zfs on linux
cottrill.david at gmail.com
Mon Jul 22 20:45:50 MDT 2013
8Gb ram, only dedup and compression applied on some filesystems in the
Initially I followed the warnings, and found they don't really impact my
The reason for zfs is the read/write caching, which turned a very lethargic
setup into something good via a 64GB SSD zil and l2arc partition setup.
So far there has been a minor performance boost with the changes. Nothing
to get excited about though.
On Jul 23, 2013 10:44 AM, "Richard C" <richard_c at tpg.com.au> wrote:
> Chef Chef,
> Other than a quick "I told you so...", I'll skip on to asking about how
> much RAM your server has? ZFS is renown for sucking up RAM in vast amounts
> (relative to other filesystems). The FreeNAS peeps seem to think that 4-8GB
> is a (barely) working minimum, and then add more for any application or ZFS
> feature, you may be running . I imagine that the Linux port is somewhat
> more greedy.
> Your server is in danger of having more RAM than disk (not wrong per se,
> but certainly unorthodox).
> Does btrfs have enough of the feautures that you want?
>  http://doc.freenas.org/index.php/Hardware_Recommendations
> On 19 July 2013 23:35, David C <cottrill.david at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>> I replaced FreeBSD with Debian Wheezy tonight after a reasonably serious
>> root drive failure.
>> Given that all my data drives are ZFS and the Linux port is not optimised,
>> would anyone like to offer an opinion about my NFS4 speeds, which are not
>> optimised in FreeBSD.
>> Of some note is that this system is built on an HP N40L microserver with
>> (brace yourselves) 5400rpm 750GB disks.
>> More of a hypothetical as I never really came to grips with managing
>> FreeBSD, don't have any solid benchmarks on hand, and don't want to give
>> the ZFS goodies.
>> Thanks for your opinions / advice on making it better.
>> linux mailing list
>> linux at lists.samba.org
More information about the linux