Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751272AbWHAEni (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 00:43:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751271AbWHAEni (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 00:43:38 -0400 Received: from warden-p.diginsite.com ([208.29.163.248]:56504 "HELO warden.diginsite.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751260AbWHAEni (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Aug 2006 00:43:38 -0400 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:41:02 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang X-X-Sender: dlang@dlang.diginsite.com To: David Masover cc: tdwebste2@yahoo.com, Theodore Tso , Nate Diller , Adrian Ulrich , "Horst H. von Brand" , ipso@snappymail.ca, reiser@namesys.com, lkml@lpbproductions.com, jeff@garzik.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Subject: Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view"expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion] In-Reply-To: <44CED777.5080308@slaphack.com> Message-ID: References: <20060801034726.58097.qmail@web51311.mail.yahoo.com> <44CED777.5080308@slaphack.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2044 Lines: 39 On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, David Masover wrote: >> And perhaps a >> really good clustering filesystem for markets that >> require NO downtime. > > Thing is, a cluster is about the only FS I can imagine that could reasonably > require (and MAYBE provide) absolutely no downtime. Everything else, the more > you say it requires no downtime, the more I say it requires redundancy. > > Am I missing any more obvious examples where you can't have enough > redundancy, but you can't have downtime either? just becouse you have redundancy doesn't mean that your data is idle enough for you to run a repacker with your spare cycles. to run a repacker you need a time when the chunk of the filesystem that you are repacking is not being accessed or written to. it doesn't matter if that data lives on one disk or 9 disks all mirroring the same data, you can't just break off 1 of the copies and repack that becouse by the time you finish it won't match the live drives anymore. database servers have a repacker (vaccum), and they are under tremendous preasure from their users to avoid having to use it becouse of the performance hit that it generates. (the theory in the past is exactly what was presented in this thread, make things run faster most of the time and accept the performance hit when you repack). the trend seems to be for a repacker thread that runs continuously, causing a small impact all the time (that can be calculated into the capacity planning) instead of a large impact once in a while. the other thing they are seeing as new people start useing them is that the newbys don't realize they need to do somthing as archaic as running a repacker periodicly, as a result they let things devolve down to where performance is really bad without understanding why. David Lang - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/