similar to: UFS or ZFS for MYSQL and APACHE web server data and Database

I have two 200GB ISCSI LUN''s setup on each X4600 M2 running Solaris 10 X86 update 4. The data on these ISCSI disks for one server will be Apache and on the other server MYSQL. My question is should I setup these disks as a ZFS Pool filesystem or as a UFS soft partition (eventually the LUN will be expanded). What would offer the best performance and easier to expand later on? What

We have a Mirror setup in ZFS that''s 73GB (two internal disks on a sun fire v440). We currently are going to attach this system to an Equallogic Box, and will attach an ISCSCI LUN from the Equallogic box to the v440 of about 200gb. The Equallogic Box is configured as a Hardware Raid 50 (two hot spares for redundancy). My question is what''s the best approach to moving the ZFS

This question is concerning ZFS. We have a Sun Fire V890 attached to a EMC disk array. Here''s are plan to incorporate ZFS: On our EMC storage array we will create 3 LUNS. Now how would ZFS be used for the best performance? What I''m trying to ask is if you have 3 LUNS and you want to create a ZFS storage pool, would it be better to have a storage pool per LUN or combine the 3

This question is concerning ZFS. We have a Sun Fire V890 attached to a EMC disk array. Here''s are plan to incorporate ZFS: On our EMC storage array we will create 3 LUNS. Now how would ZFS be used for the best performance? What I''m trying to ask is if you have 3 LUNS and you want to create a ZFS storage pool, would it be better to have a storage pool per LUN or combine the 3

I''m planning on setting up an NFS server for our ESXi hosts and plan on using a virtualized Solaris or Nexenta host to serve ZFS over NFS. The storage I have available is provided by Equallogic boxes over 10Gbe iSCSI. I am trying to figure out the best way to provide both performance and resiliency given the Equallogic provides the redundancy. Since I am hoping to provide a 2TB

Hi, ZFS experts, From ZFS release notes, " Solaris 10 6/06 and Solaris 10 11/06: Do Not Place the Root File Systemof a Non-Global Zone on ZFS. The zonepath of a non-global zone should not reside on ZFS for this release. This action might result in patching problems and possibly prevent the system from being upgraded to a later Solaris 10 update release." So my question is, do we

I have a Solaris 10 U5 system massively patched so that it supports ZFS pool version 15 (similar to U8, kernel Generic_141445-09), live upgrade components have been updated to Solaris 10 U8 versions from the DVD, and GRUB has been updated to support redundant menus across the UFS boot environments. I have studied the Solaris 10 Live Upgrade manual (821-0438) and am unable to find any

Since most of our customers are predominantly UFS based, we would like to use the same configuration and compare ZFS performance, so that we can announce support for ZFS. We''re planning on measuring the performance of a ZFS file system vs UFS file system. Please look at the following scenario and let us know if this is a good performance measurement criterion.

Hi all, Does zfs and UFS will sit on same machine?. if yes is it possible to share zfs files using CIFS. Thanks Naveen -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

Hi, Bug ID: 6775100 stat() performance on files on zfs should be improved was fixed in snv_119. I wanted to do a quick comparison between snv_117 and snv_122 on my workstation to see what kind of improvement there is. I wrote a small C program which does a stat() N times in a loop. This is of course a micro-benchmark. Additionally it doesn''t cover a case if doing stat() on not cached

Hi All, If a zone root is on zfs but that zone also contains SAN attached UFS devices what is recorded in a zfs snapshot of the zone? Does the snapshot only contain the ZFS root info? How would one recover this complete zone? Thanks, Shawn -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

No such facility exists to automagically convert an existing UFS filesystem to ZFS. You''ve to create a new ZFS pool/filesystem and then move your data. This message posted from opensolaris.org

OK I have a very large zfs snapshot I want to destroy. When I do this, the system nearly freezes during the zfs destroy. This is a Sun Fire X4600 with 128GB of memory. Now this may be more of a function of the IO device, but let''s say I don''t care that this zfs destroy finishes quickly. I actually don''t care, as long as it finishes before I run out of disk space. So a

I had some trouble installing a zone on ZFS with S10u4 (bug in the postgres packages) that went away when I used a ZVOL-backed UFS filesystem for the zonepath. I thought I''d push on with the experiment (in the hope Live Upgrade would be able to upgrade such a zone). It''s a bit unwieldy, but everything worked reasonably well - performance isn''t much worse than straight

hi all Try to learn how UFS root to ZFS root liveUG work. I download the vbox image of s10u8, it come up as UFS root. add a new disks (16GB) create zpool rpool run lucreate -n zfsroot -p rpool run luactivate zfsroot run lustatus it do show zfsroot will be active in next boot init 6 but it come up with UFS root, lustatus show ufsroot active zpool rpool is mounted but not used by boot Is this a

Hi ZFS gods, I have a x4500 I wish to upgrade from a SVM UFS Sol 10u5 to a ZFS rpool 10u6 or Opensolaris. Since I know (via backing up my sharetab) what shares I need to have (all nfs share - no cifs on this 4500 - YAY) and have organised downtime for this server, would it be easier for me to go to Solaris 10u6 (or opensolaris) by just installing from scratch and re-importing the ZPOOL

I have a test cluster running HA-NFS that shares both ufs and zfs based file systems. However, the behavior that I am seeing is a little perplexing. The Setup: I have Sun Cluster 3.2 on a pair of SunBlade 1000''s connecting to two T3B partner groups through a QLogic switch. All four bricks of the T3B are configured as RAID-5 with a hot spare. One brick from each pair is mirrored with VxVM

> There is of course the caveat of using raw devices with databases (it > becomes harder to track usage, especially as the number of LUNs > increases, slightly less visibility into their usage statistics at the > OS level ). However perhaps now someone can implement the CR I filed > a long time ago to add ASM support to libfstyp.so that would allow > zfs, mkfs, format, etc. to

Hi, I''m preparing a personal TPC-H benchmark. The goal is not to measure or optimize the database performance, but to compare ZFS to UFS in similar configurations. At the moment I''m preparing the tests at home. The test setup is as follows: . Solaris snv_37 . 2 x AMD Opteron 252 . 4 GB RAM . 2 x 80 GB ST380817AS . Oracle 10gR2 (small SGA (320m)) The disks also contain the OS

We are running Solaris 10 11/06 on a Sun V240 with 2 CPUS and 8 GB of memory. This V240 is attached to a 3510 FC that has 12 x 300 GB disks. The 3510 is configured as HW RAID 5 with 10 disks and 2 spares and it''s exported to the V240 as a single LUN. We create iso images of our product in the following way (high-level): # mkfile 3g /isoimages/myiso # lofiadm -a /isoimages/myiso