m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk
Wed Sep 9 15:52:04 UTC 2015
On 2015/09/09 16:15, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
> I have heard that filling your zpool is a *BAD* thing, but it can be for
> any FS, just maybe a bit worse for ZFS. I am going to study that option
> a bit more. The online docs all seem to show swap within the zpool as
> well, does that work OK, performance wise ? It would simplify
> installation, however I am planning to script that, so a bit of 'extra'
> effort for separate swap partitions is not an issue. I have always
> thought that separate swap partitions directly kernel managed were the
> best for swap performance if/when it gets down to that, no ?
Filling the zpool completely is tricky because it can be hard to
recover. The trick is (a) don't do that; (b) create space by
*truncating* a large file if it happens. Or use FreeBSD 10.x which has
a 3% space reservation, similarly to how UFS does.
However, you'll find that ZFS performance drops quite a bit when you hit
somewhere north of about 75% full.
Yes, you should swap to a dedicated partition, rather than swapping
within ZFS. I think, BICBW, that you can still get into a deadlock
where you need extra memory to handle an out-of-memory condition.
Just use the system installer to set up your drives and zpool -- it
makes it ridiculously easy.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 972 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the freebsd-questions