Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 13:46:22 +0000 From: Dr Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk> To: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS on a single disk? Message-ID: <E381B5B9-D074-4525-B56A-70ACC7041274@tao.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinp5-kHGePPtyiruxKVhWcioRrGwMAYe%2BygK76M@mail.gmail.com> References: <0E00DAFC-C39F-47DC-B9AF-16419C20997F@tao.org.uk> <615F1346-E830-42E2-B229-4181B8BC56BD@exonetric.com> <53FA69D2-2EF0-4CBF-985B-6E710F15FE02@tao.org.uk> <20110302001650.GB49147@icarus.home.lan> <27423168-85BE-41B1-8E14-94F01310EFE4@tao.org.uk> <20110302121612.GA61020@icarus.home.lan> <9EAE56CB-0CE9-4A08-B783-3EF9B1059E62@tao.org.uk> <AANLkTinp5-kHGePPtyiruxKVhWcioRrGwMAYe%2BygK76M@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4 Mar 2011, at 12:13, Tom Evans wrote: > On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Dr Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk> = wrote: >>=20 >> p.s. there are some HVM XEN hosts out there, but it looks like = they're all >> _much_ more expensive that the hosting provider that I'm considering, = which >> appears to be offering a sweet spot of memory/cost. >=20 > PAE? What is this, the 90s? ;) >=20 > i386 + ZFS is not a wise move IMO. Any reason why you cannot use = amd64? >=20 Hey Tom, The problem actually boils down to the fact that our amd64 XEN support = isn't entirely para-virtualized, which means it needs hardware = virtualisation support (HVM) to run. There hosting provider I'm looking = at doesn't support HVM, leaving me unable to take advantage of amd64 in = this scenario. There are other providers that do, but they are twice as = much cost for half as much ram. Joe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E381B5B9-D074-4525-B56A-70ACC7041274>