Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th May 2008 15:32 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris It seems like we're really on the subject of filesystems and related technology the past few days. We had an interview with the man behind BeServed, an item on WinFS' current status, and now we - possibly - have news on ZFS coming to Linux. Possibly, because it's all speculation from here on out.
Thread beginning with comment 314811
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I use ZFS on 1GB RAM
by WereCatf on Mon 19th May 2008 08:28 UTC in reply to "I use ZFS on 1GB RAM"
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

And, ZFS is so simple too. Ive heard to set ut a raid with linux + lvm is like 25 command lines with difficult syntax

I have tried LVM2 and I can tell you it is a pain in the butt. I have this old 1ghz Athlon as my file server here at home, and the curious cat as I am I once decided to try LVM2. Well, it was pretty complicated but I got it up and running, worked well for a while, but then one of the disks failed...I didn't have a replacement disk for that so I had to remove it from the system and place the files somewhere else. Now, LVM2 doesn't make that easy. I literally had to move all the files to another system (and delete quite a bit of stuff too cos I didn't have sufficient storage space elsewhere) just because there is no way to remove a disk from LVM2 setup without resizing the partitions and resizing partitions was a complete no-go cos I couldn't allow anything to be written to the broken disk. Since ZFS is a pooled system it allows one to just issue a command for removing one disk from the pool and the system will just locate the files somewhere else in the pool.

Too bad that I can't use ZFS on my server due to memory requirements, it only has 128mb RAM and due to some motherboard issues I haven't been able to find any combination of RAM sticks that would work, only a single stick will function.. :/ I am hoping btrfs will someday be good enough for me to use.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I use ZFS on 1GB RAM
by Kebabbert on Mon 19th May 2008 08:58 in reply to "RE: I use ZFS on 1GB RAM"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Werecatt

If you can not use ZFS on your home server, because of 128MB RAM, maybe you could upgrade your home server? I mean, a server is important. I at least, prioritize the home server and would surely find an old computer, 1GHz + 1GB RAM will do (but you will get 20MB/sec unless you have 64bit cpu). But your data will be safe. Isnt it important enough to shell out 100 bucks on an upgrade?

As someone posted, the advantages is too great not to use on a server.
http://kerneltrap.org/FreeBSD/BSDCan_2008_ZFS_Internals

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I use ZFS on 1GB RAM
by WereCatf on Mon 19th May 2008 13:13 in reply to "RE[2]: I use ZFS on 1GB RAM"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

If you can not use ZFS on your home server, because of 128MB RAM, maybe you could upgrade your home server? I mean, a server is important. I at least, prioritize the home server and would surely find an old computer, 1GHz + 1GB RAM will do (but you will get 20MB/sec unless you have 64bit cpu). But your data will be safe. Isnt it important enough to shell out 100 bucks on an upgrade?

I use it to purely serve files to 4 computers, nothing else, so 1ghz with 128mb RAM is plenty. I don't see any point in upgrading the system just to use another filesystem when it won't benefit anything else. Of course the self-healing capabilities of ZFS are an excellent deal but as I said, the system isn't used for anything else so I just can't justify the upgrade.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: I use ZFS on 1GB RAM
by d3vi1 on Mon 19th May 2008 18:19 in reply to "RE[2]: I use ZFS on 1GB RAM"
d3vi1 Member since:
2006-01-28

I am pretty sure that it works like a charm on my 2.8GHz 32bit P4 Xeon. I am also pretty sure that I get about 80MB/sec out of these old hard-drives with compression and 100MB/sec without compression enabled.
And I can tell you for sure that for my workload (a file-server for a 30 workstation domain) it worked just as fast when it had only 512 MB of RAM. It now has 2GB for some containers that run other applications, but it worked with only 512 MB of RAM.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I use ZFS on 1GB RAM
by Calipso on Mon 19th May 2008 12:24 in reply to "RE: I use ZFS on 1GB RAM"
Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

Couldn't you just have used lvmove to move all your data off the bad disk and then done a pvremove to remove the disk from the volume group? Also, how could you have used ZFS to remove a drive from the pool if you didn't have the spare space for all your data??

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I use ZFS on 1GB RAM
by WereCatf on Mon 19th May 2008 12:56 in reply to "RE[2]: I use ZFS on 1GB RAM"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Couldn't you just have used lvmove to move all your data off the bad disk and then done a pvremove to remove the disk from the volume group? Also, how could you have used ZFS to remove a drive from the pool if you didn't have the spare space for all your data??

The subvolume spanned all 3 disks so there was no disk to lvmove to. But, there was enough space in the subvolume itself to hold duplicate copies of the files that were in the broken disk. So, if I could have just located those files on the 2 healthy disks then I wouldn't have had any issues. But LVM2 doesn't provide such utility since it's just another layer..With ZFS you could just instruct it to move all the files laying in the broken disk to other areas in the spool without writing anything in the broken one. With LVM2, if I resize the volume I have no way of preventing it from writing to the broken disk.

Reply Parent Score: 2