[OpenIndiana-discuss] dedup status

[Jonathan Adams]

Thanks for this, please keep us informed.

We have multiple systems with ZFS raid (3 disks per pool) that are
snapshot'd and those snapshots are rsynced over the internet and replayed
onto a duplicate server in a different location ... currently these servers
are on Solaris 10.

I would be really interested to find out how well this sort of situation
works over time; on the current system, we have had some weird ZFS
corruption which we have had to patch for.

Jon

On 30 September 2010 20:36, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk <roy at karlsbakk.net> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I just tested dedup on this test box running OpenIndiana (147) storing
> bacula backups, and did some more testing on some datasets with ISO images.
> The results show so far that removing 30GB deduped datasets are done in a
> matter of minutes, which is not the case with 134 (which may take hours).
> The tests also show that the write speed to the pool is low, very low, if
> dedup is enabled. This is a box with a 3GHz core2duo, 8 gigs of RAM, eight
> 2TB drives and a 80GB x25m for the SLOG (4 gigs) and L2ARC (the rest of it).
>
> So far I will conclude that dedup should be useful if storage capacity is
> crucial, but not if performance is taken into concideration.
>
> Mind, this is not a high-end box, but still, I think the numbers show
> something
>
> Vennlige hilsener / Best regards
>
> roy
> --
> Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
> (+47) 97542685
> roy at karlsbakk.net
> http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/
> --
> I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det
> er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av
> idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate
> og relevante synonymer på norsk.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
> OpenIndiana-discuss at openindiana.org
> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
>