Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:12:07 +0000 From: Simon Dick <simond@irrelevant.org> To: Dr Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk> Cc: freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: Re: XEN i386 with PAE and zfs, trouble? Message-ID: <AANLkTi=TQc9RiHM3V5gN0uiupr9E_C5w0fwZUiFLut2-@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <423DA028-1CDB-443F-B3F0-C610D6268484@tao.org.uk> References: <AANLkTinp5-kHGePPtyiruxKVhWcioRrGwMAYe%2BygK76M@mail.gmail.com> <423DA028-1CDB-443F-B3F0-C610D6268484@tao.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4 March 2011 14:11, Dr Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk> wrote: > Hey there, > > I've been asking these questions to the wrong list! Just found the xen li= st, so I'll recap here. > > I want to run amd64 on xen, at a VPS hosting provider. Due to cost constr= aints the sweet spot in the cost/memory ratio has given me a provider who w= ill only support a "ops_pv" kernel. This means that XENHVM on amd64 is not = available to me. > > The VPS provider will be giving me at least 6 gb of ram, and I want to ru= n ZFS on the instance. This leaves me considering running the i386 kernel a= nd relying on PAE to get access to the extra memory. I presume that I'll lo= se about 1.5-2gb of RAM to ZFS tuning, and hope that means that I'll have 4= gb(-ish) available to userland processes. > > Is this a sensible assumption? Can I rely on this being a stable configur= ation, or am I high?! :) Not sure if it's just me, but you lose a fair few of ZFSs features if you're not running it on actual hardware drives, etc, though I think what you're planning may work it's not a setup I'd like to run myself apart from to experiment with :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=TQc9RiHM3V5gN0uiupr9E_C5w0fwZUiFLut2->