On Jul 4, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Sun recommends against the 3511 in most literature I read, saying
> that the SATA drives
> are slower and not going to handle as much IOPS loading. But they
> are working out okay
> for you? Perhaps it's just vendor upsell to the more expensi
On Jul 4, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Dale Ghent wrote:
>> each with a zpool comprising of a mirror between two se3511s on our
>> SAN...
> Sun recommends against the 3511 in most literature I read, saying that
> the SATA drives
> are slower and not going to handle as much IOPS loading
Dale Ghent wrote:
> each with a zpool comprising of a mirror between two se3511s on our
> SAN...
Sun recommends against the 3511 in most literature I read, saying that
the SATA drives
are slower and not going to handle as much IOPS loading. But they are
working out okay
for you? Perhaps it's
Dale Ghent wrote:
> Sorry for the double reply, but by the way, what sort of compression
ratio are you seeing on your ZFS filesystems?
{cyrus1:vf5:136} zfs get compressratio cyrus/mail
NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
cyrus/mail compressratio 1.26x
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Dale Ghent wrote:
; On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:05 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
;
; > We currently have 27,323 accounts on it, and it is performing
; > very well, with atime=off and compression=on.
;
; Sorry for the double reply, but by the way, what sort of compression
; ratio are you seei
