Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:55:38 -0600 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: Patrick Dung <patrick_dkt@yahoo.com.hk> Cc: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com>, freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS sub-optimal performance with default setting Message-ID: <CA%2BtpaK0WT5Pv-es_hdqyuL=4vEzeBs4L44qJkPfy-b3Kh8Bvnw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1357915426.16602.YahooMailClassic@web190801.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> References: <1357915426.16602.YahooMailClassic@web190801.mail.sg3.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Patrick Dung <patrick_dkt@yahoo.com.hk>wrote: > Hi Tom, > > To make it simple, I have setup in this setting: > > Host: Intel dual core 3Ghz CPU, RHEL 6.3 x64, RAM 8GB > > Freebsd 9.1 -i386 VM with these setting: > CPU: One > Memory: 2GB > 5GB for OS (da1) > 5GB for ZFS (da2), no separate ZIL > > Installed software: > Postgresql 9.2.2 (compile from ports) /usr/local/pgsql is a ZFS dataset > OTRS 3.1.6 (compile from ports) > Apache 2 install from packages > > zfs/postgresql/otrs/apache is in default setting, except I have turned off > atime in ZFS. I might make the argument ZFS isn't necessary or all that useful in this setup while adding quite a bit of overhead. About all you get over a UFS version is cheap snapshotting and even UFS can snapshot 50 GB with relatively low overhead. Single disk ZFS systems do also offer things like integrity checking, but UFS would still work fine for your use case. Additionally, I would still be worried about stability under load on a low mem 32 bit install. -- Adam Vande More
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BtpaK0WT5Pv-es_hdqyuL=4vEzeBs4L44qJkPfy-b3Kh8Bvnw>