From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3A411381F3 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:49:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B26FE0B7E; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:49:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from svr-us4.tirtonadi.com (svr-us4.tirtonadi.com [69.65.43.212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D84DE0B69 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:49:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f180.google.com ([209.85.220.180]:53587) by svr-us4.tirtonadi.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VNQN6-002b44-GY for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:49:28 +0700 Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ld13so1183420vcb.11 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:49:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=wvhwKZh8M5Y6/ceNSRLn7XSahc2i3IbyezgoGT3ULVU=; b=BbOX6u2qdCLGeDdn8EURrmG+/2elbCXSqX0TahvB2CGB37gjeNDV8324+hlMFDjn49 LfW9alNEpShHZbBb6LqTLLBCDl7M7TBseE2jbunbtzkTwAobwDL+EPwzDpihoM1J0JRA hLWDJhpwsJ6UCN+rdp1eBDzjoHGIvz7FPFrovtyaHjaucMrgAPg399BDCHOlD4Xq4iP7 +7H1lT5pRccV216wKIhlK3dATpg2oUSGWw7L/BaI+q/mImqagRaQiW4H0gUU3zBHLYPP dtvef7SWoQONUrGInX1s2ptoH0xLC89s9e4YV0Vp2zm6E9Gnb3JhVlyUEfk4EQybAvOa qSxw== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.10.194 with SMTP id q2mr12278601vcq.2.1379782164591; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.163.69 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.163.69 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:49:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <523D96DB.4090803@thegeezer.net> References: <523D96DB.4090803@thegeezer.net> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 23:49:24 +0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ZFS From: Pandu Poluan To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3b944c9c89a04e6e79117 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - svr-us4.tirtonadi.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.gentoo.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - poluan.info X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: svr-us4.tirtonadi.com: authenticated_id: rileyer+pandu.poluan.info/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Archives-Salt: 98e5ec81-3762-4c89-a8d8-079091228a8c X-Archives-Hash: a5a6883d490bdce8b2896f48dca749b4 --001a11c3b944c9c89a04e6e79117 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sep 21, 2013 7:54 PM, "thegeezer" wrote: > > On 09/17/2013 08:20 AM, Grant 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? > > > > From a RAID perspective only, is ZFS a better choice than conventional > > software RAID? > > > > 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? > > > > 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? > > > > 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 > > > > Besides performance, are there any drawbacks to ZFS compared to ext4? > > > > - Grant > > > Howdy, > been reading this thread and am pretty intrigued, ZFS is much more than > i thought it was. > I was wondering though does ZFS work as a multiple client single storage > cluster such as GFS/OCFS/VMFS/OrangeFS ? Well... not really. Of course you could run ZFS over DRBD, or run any of those filesystems on top a zvol... But I'll say, ZFS is not (yet?) a clustered filesystem. > I was also wondering if anyone could share their experience with ZFS on > iscsi - especially considering the readahead /proc changes required on > same system ? > thanks! > Although I have no experience of ZFS over iSCSI, I don't think that's any problem. As long as ZFS can 'see' the block device comes time for it to mount the pool and all 'child' datasets (or zvols), all should be well. In this case, however, you would want the iSCSI target to not perform a readahead. Let ZFS 'instructs' the iSCSI target on which sectors to read. Rgds, -- --001a11c3b944c9c89a04e6e79117 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Sep 21, 2013 7:54 PM, "thegeezer" <thegeezer@thegeezer.net> wrote:
>
> On 09/17/2013 08:20 AM, Grant wrote:
> > I'm convinced I need 3-disk RAID1 so I can lose 2 drives and = keep
> > running. =C2=A0I'd also like to stripe for performance, resul= ting in
> > RAID10. =C2=A0It sounds like most hardware controllers do not sup= port
> > 6-disk RAID10 so ZFS looks very interesting.
> >
> > Can I operate ZFS RAID without a hardware RAID controller?
> >
> > From a RAID perspective only, is ZFS a better choice than convent= ional
> > software RAID?
> >
> > ZFS seems to have many excellent features and I'd like to eas= e into
> > them slowly (like an old man into a nice warm bath). =C2=A0Does Z= FS allow
> > you to set up additional features later (e.g. snapshots, encrypti= on,
> > deduplication, compression) or is some forethought required when = first
> > making the filesystem?
> >
> > It looks like there are comprehensive ZFS Gentoo docs
> > (http://wiki.gentoo.o= rg/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 ex= t4?
> >
> > Performance doesn't seem to be one of ZFS's strong points= . =C2=A0Is it
> > considered suitable for a high-performance server?
> >
> > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Dnews_item&px=3DMT= M1NTA
> >
> > Besides performance, are there any drawbacks to ZFS compared to e= xt4?
> >
> > - Grant
> >
> Howdy,
> been reading this thread and am pretty intrigued, ZFS is much more tha= n
> i thought it was.
> I was wondering though does ZFS work as a multiple client single stora= ge
> cluster such as GFS/OCFS/VMFS/OrangeFS ?

Well... not really.

Of course you could run ZFS over DRBD, or run any of those f= ilesystems on top a zvol...

But I'll say, ZFS is not (yet?) a clustered filesystem.<= /p>

> I was also wondering if anyone could share their experi= ence with ZFS on
> iscsi - especially considering the readahead /proc changes required on=
> same system ?
> thanks!
>

Although I have no experience of ZFS over iSCSI, I don't= think that's any problem.

As long as ZFS can 'see' the block device comes time= for it to mount the pool and all 'child' datasets (or zvols), all = should be well.

In this case, however, you would want the iSCSI target to no= t perform a readahead. Let ZFS 'instructs' the iSCSI target on whic= h sectors to read.

Rgds,
--

--001a11c3b944c9c89a04e6e79117--