From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 29 07:37:33 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 936D64A6 for ; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:37:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kraduk@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x22a.google.com (mail-wi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 279C71A07 for ; Fri, 29 May 2015 07:37:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kraduk@gmail.com) Received: by wicmx19 with SMTP id mx19so8974300wic.0 for ; Fri, 29 May 2015 00:37:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ZSFSZBQbhC1Q2ZUxb4VT3u+eYkL8xd7S1oUTNAc/VRM=; b=ll47kLoajyBYevZ4NUfwqCY6mi2MwDTZkeMM++2eYkbflNJUvxHzsgWzQAV7XPdGCk Jff4LIu5AJvAkoU+D3/d4zr25HoGVMU//Zt7ap595e8BSWW2ib/V1LSOYJ50N5QFkNCl VyFCabDIZu/TtBWdYYu1Xlc3KpUxvUQNGe3yJg8N3Kyf/5TZ/vMj5HgkCfJX6xAKzgpV TioR1ShdKJaqm4H/UIsEBsx3oVsWZ4A+YOBomFD5iBF2KNXKV00/+do6Cz8EHQ+4quQE NLVGIhhjxZJhPCGT1u72Kkp8SHt1Kg7QT5WIB6U729xzkea2YQujBD3XMHCF2SAeCdFl kxpw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.218.195 with SMTP id pi3mr3725141wic.71.1432885051618; Fri, 29 May 2015 00:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.210.149 with HTTP; Fri, 29 May 2015 00:37:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <9C96EB4B-A230-4A26-BDC3-067367A61E34@shire.net> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 08:37:31 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: ZFS in a VM? From: krad To: Luca Ferrari Cc: "Chad Leigh Shire.Net LLC" , "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" , Jaime Kikpole Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 07:37:33 -0000 in a vm i think its more a manageability thing for me. Its not about performance as if i wanted that I would be bare metal. Boot environments, being able to roll back specific areas of the system are tools not to be sniffed at. On 28 May 2015 at 17:21, Luca Ferrari wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Chad Leigh Shire.Net LLC > wrote: > > I do. I do it not so much for any performance benefits, if any, ZFS > offers, but more for data integrity. You need to tune it since the VM > based disks are not the same as physical disks. I run into performance > issues when the =E2=80=9Cdisk=E2=80=9D gets to a certain usage level (in = terms of used > capacity). > > I'm not sure ZFS on a virtual disk will help a lot on a disk based > corruption, but I'm not a guru in this subject. > I personally tend to use ufs on my virtual machines, relying more on > the host file system for no data corruption. This allows me to have > smaller machines and use the ram for other stuff. > But this is my personal point of view. > > As pointed out in this thread: tuning ZFS on virtual machine is not > the same as tuning it on real disks (and this is pretty much valid for > every tuning operation in virtual machines). > > Luca > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >