Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 9 Jul 2015 14:25:41 -0700
From:      Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com>
To:        Paul Kraus <paul@kraus-haus.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD - <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Gmirror/graid or hardware raid?
Message-ID:  <0B66BF03-53F6-4CDD-8530-6CFFA89D04EE@mac.com>
In-Reply-To: <7F08761C-556E-4147-95DB-E84B4E5179A5@kraus-haus.org>
References:  <CA%2ByoEx-T5V3Rchxugke3%2BoUno6SwXHW1%2Bx466kWtb8VNYb%2BBbg@mail.gmail.com> <917A821C-02F8-4F96-88DA-071E3431C335@mac.com> <7F08761C-556E-4147-95DB-E84B4E5179A5@kraus-haus.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 9, 2015, at 7:32 AM, Paul Kraus <paul@kraus-haus.org> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 17:21, Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> Most of the PROD databases I know of working from local storage have =
heaps of
>> RAID-1 mirrors, and sometimes larger volumes created as RAID-10 or =
RAID-50.
>> Higher volume shops use dedicated SAN filers via redundant Fibre =
Channel mesh
>> or similar for their database storage needs.
>=20
> Many years ago I had a client buy a couple racks FULL of trays of 36 =
GB SCSI drives (yes, it was that long ago) and partition them so that =
they only used the first 1 GB of each. This was purely for performance. =
They were running a relatively large Oracle database and lots of OLTP =
transactions.

I seem to have memories of very expensive 18GB and 36GB 15K RPM Seagate =
Barracuda drives with SCA-2 connectors filling racks full of Sun E450s =
serving similar roles.  :-)

>>> I thought about zfs but I won't have lots of RAM avaliable
>>=20
>> ZFS wants to be run against bare metal.  I've never seen anyone setup =
ZFS within
>> a VM; it consumes far too much memory and it really wants to talk =
directly to the
>> hardware for accurate error detection.
>=20
> ZFS runs fine in a VM and the notion that it _needs_ lots of RAM is =
mostly false. I have run a FBSD Guest with ZFS and only 1 GB RAM.

No doubt FreeBSD + ZFS + low memory has improved from what it once was.  =
But I also suspect that if you did something on the system which put a =
significant amount of memory pressure on that 1GB VM, it would handle =
such a load significantly better using UFS than using ZFS.  That's a =
claim without #s, but someone with such a setup could run some =
benchmarks if they wanted to compare.

[ ...The rest of your post was informative, and hopefully helpful to the =
OP as well-- but snipped since I don't have more specific things to say =
in reply.... ]

Regards,
--=20
-Chuck




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0B66BF03-53F6-4CDD-8530-6CFFA89D04EE>