From: covici@ccs.covici.com
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ZFS
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 12:32:29 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20167.1379435549@ccs.covici.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA2qdGXWQo4aaw6Vp7b3UULGZoJESw19hE7p0--GWy8Hmf6WCA@mail.gmail.com>
Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm convinced I need 3-disk RAID1 so I can lose 2 drives and keep
> > running. I'd also like to stripe for performance, resulting in
> > RAID10. It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
> > 6-disk RAID10 so ZFS looks very interesting.
> >
> > Can I operate ZFS RAID without a hardware RAID controller?
> >
>
> Yes. In fact, that's ZFS' preferred mode of operation (i.e., it
> handles all redundancy by itself).
>
> > From a RAID perspective only, is ZFS a better choice than conventional
> > software RAID?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> ZFS checksummed all blocks during writes, and verifies those checksums
> during read.
>
> It is possible to have 2 bits flipped at the same time among 2 hard
> disks. In such case, the RAID controller will never see the bitflips.
> But ZFS will see it.
>
> > ZFS seems to have many excellent features and I'd like to ease into
> > them slowly (like an old man into a nice warm bath). Does ZFS allow
> > you to set up additional features later (e.g. snapshots, encryption,
> > deduplication, compression) or is some forethought required when first
> > making the filesystem?
> >
>
> Snapshots is built-in from the beginning. All you have to do is create
> one when you want it.
>
> Deduplication can be turned on and off at will -- but be warned: You
> need HUGE amount of RAM.
>
> Compression can be turned on and off at will. Previously-compressed
> data won't become uncompressed unless you modify them.
>
> > It looks like there are comprehensive ZFS Gentoo docs
> > (http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ZFS) but can anyone tell me from the real
> > world about how much extra difficulty/complexity is added to
> > installation and ongoing administration when choosing ZFS over ext4?
> >
>
> Very very minimal. So minimal, in fact, that if you don't plan to use
> ZFS as a root filesystem, it's laughably simple. You don't even have
> to edit /etc/fstab
>
> > Performance doesn't seem to be one of ZFS's strong points. Is it
> > considered suitable for a high-performance server?
> >
> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTM1NTA
> >
>
> Several points:
>
> 1. The added steps of checksumming (and verifying the checksums)
> *will* give a performance penalty.
>
> 2. When comparing performance of 1 (one) drive, of course ZFS will
> lose. But when you build a ZFS pool out of 3 pairs of mirrored drives,
> throughput will increase significantly as ZFS has the ability to do
> 'load-balancing' among mirror-pairs (or, in ZFS parlance, "mirrored
> vdevs")
>
> Go directly to this post:
> http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?79922-Benchmarks-Of-The-New-ZFS-On-Linux-EXT4-Wins&p=326838#post326838
>
> Notice how ZFS won against ext4 in 8 scenarios out of 9. (The only
> scenario where ZFS lost is in the single-client RAID-1 scenario)
>
> > Besides performance, are there any drawbacks to ZFS compared to ext4?
> >
>
> 1. You need a huge amount of RAM to let ZFS do its magic. But RAM is
> cheap nowadays. Data... possibly priceless.
>
> 2. Be careful when using ZFS on a server on which processes rapidly
> spawn and terminate. ZFS doesn't like memory fragmentation.
>
> For point #2, I can give you a real-life example:
>
> My mail server, for some reasons, choke if too many TLS errors happen.
> So, I placed "Perdition" in to capture all POP3 connections and
> 'un-TLS' them. Perdition spawns a new process for *every* connection.
> My mail server has 2000 users, I regularly see more than 100 Perdition
> child processes. Many very ephemeral (i.e., existing for less than 5
> seconds). The RAM is undoubtedly *extremely* fragmented. ZFS cries
> murder when it cannot allocate a contiguous SLAB of memory to increase
> its ARC Cache.
>
> OTOH, on another very busy server (mail archiving server using
> MailArchiva, handling 2000+ emails per hour), ZFS run flawlessly. No
> incident _at_all_. Undoubtedly because MailArchiva use one single huge
> process (Java-based) to handle all transactions, so no RAM
> fragmentation here.
Spo do I need that overlay at all, or just emerge zfs and its module?
Also, I now have lvm volumes, including root, but not boot, how to
convert and do I have to do anything to my initramfs?
--
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
How do
you spend it?
John Covici
covici@ccs.covici.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-17 16:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-17 7:20 [gentoo-user] ZFS Grant
2013-09-17 7:36 ` Marc Stürmer
2013-09-17 8:05 ` Pandu Poluan
2013-09-17 8:22 ` Alan McKinnon
2013-09-17 9:44 ` Grant
2013-09-17 9:42 ` Grant
2013-09-17 10:11 ` Tanstaafl
2013-09-17 16:32 ` covici [this message]
2013-09-19 22:41 ` Douglas J Hunley
2013-09-20 23:12 ` Hinnerk van Bruinehsen
2013-09-19 22:46 ` Douglas J Hunley
2013-09-17 9:52 ` Joerg Schilling
2013-09-17 13:22 ` Grant
2013-09-17 13:30 ` Joerg Schilling
2013-09-17 16:39 ` Alan McKinnon
2013-09-18 4:06 ` Grant
2013-09-17 10:19 ` Tanstaafl
2013-09-17 13:21 ` Grant
2013-09-17 15:18 ` Michael Orlitzky
2013-09-17 15:40 ` Tanstaafl
2013-09-17 16:34 ` Michael Orlitzky
2013-09-17 17:00 ` Tanstaafl
2013-09-17 17:07 ` Michael Orlitzky
2013-09-17 17:34 ` Tanstaafl
2013-09-17 17:54 ` Stefan G. Weichinger
2013-09-18 4:11 ` Grant
2013-09-18 7:26 ` Stefan G. Weichinger
2013-09-18 15:17 ` Stefan G. Weichinger
2013-09-19 22:46 ` Douglas J Hunley
2013-09-20 9:17 ` Joerg Schilling
2013-09-20 11:17 ` Tanstaafl
2013-09-18 4:02 ` Grant
2013-09-17 18:00 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2013-09-17 18:11 ` covici
2013-09-17 19:30 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2013-09-18 4:20 ` Grant
2013-09-20 18:20 ` Grant
2013-09-20 23:07 ` Hinnerk van Bruinehsen
2013-09-21 4:34 ` Grant
2013-09-17 18:11 ` Tanstaafl
2013-09-17 19:30 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2013-09-18 4:22 ` Bruce Hill
2013-09-18 8:03 ` Neil Bothwick
2013-09-18 12:55 ` [gentoo-user] ZFS James
2013-09-19 4:49 ` Grant
2013-09-19 7:43 ` Pandu Poluan
2013-09-19 7:44 ` Hinnerk van Bruinehsen
2013-09-19 7:47 ` Pandu Poluan
2013-09-19 8:04 ` Stefan G. Weichinger
2013-09-19 13:04 ` Grant
2013-09-19 10:37 ` Tanstaafl
2013-09-19 12:29 ` Grant
2013-09-19 12:54 ` Pandu Poluan
2013-09-19 13:01 ` Grant
2013-09-19 13:12 ` Pandu Poluan
2013-09-18 4:12 ` [gentoo-user] ZFS Grant
2013-09-18 9:56 ` Joerg Schilling
2013-09-18 17:04 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2013-09-19 4:47 ` Grant
2013-09-20 15:11 ` Volker Armin Hemmann
2013-09-18 13:53 ` Stefan G. Weichinger
2013-09-19 1:02 ` Dale
2013-09-19 4:44 ` Grant
2013-09-19 7:40 ` Dale
2013-09-19 7:45 ` Pandu Poluan
2013-09-19 9:07 ` Joerg Schilling
2013-09-19 11:22 ` Dale
2013-09-19 11:27 ` Joerg Schilling
2013-09-22 1:19 ` Dale
2013-09-19 9:04 ` Joerg Schilling
2013-09-21 12:53 ` thegeezer
2013-09-21 16:49 ` Pandu Poluan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20167.1379435549@ccs.covici.com \
--to=covici@ccs.covici.com \
--cc=gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox