7 Oct
2012
7 Oct
'12
9:57 p.m.
On 07/10/12 3:57 PM, jim s wrote:
On 10/7/2012 10:36 AM, Dave McGuire wrote:
Yes, 512MB is likely too small. I never ran it on anything less than
2GB. The bigger your workload the more RAM it wants. I always used to
fantasise about a ZFS-lite for smaller/embedded; I am sure it is
possible. Maybe btrfs will scale down further.
On 10/07/2012 01:00 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
The choice for systems with resources make sense, but for smaller
systems I've had memory problems with ZFS blowing the system up. For
instance a freenas system with 512mb pigs out with ZFS and won't support
the file system. Have you looked into the integrity-by-design of
ZFS? (Sadly now owned by
Oracle, but forked as open source.)
Seconded. I'm now to the point where I
grumble if I have to bother
with a system NOT running ZFS. I even use it on my desktop machine.
-Dave
This system is a fully embedded linux, in that it boots to linux from
flash, then installs an "operating" linux on the hard drives with full
operational features after initialization. There is nothing odd about
the build other than it is a bit old kernel wise now.
I don't know if they had ZFS as an open source embedded option when they
first made the system. The system is from Infarant and the main bit of
technology they had was a single chip system with 4 sata ports, and 2
1gb network ports and a 32bit sparc on a chip. The original selling
method was to get a mini-itx box and the original board they made which
is what is in the readynas-1000s now could be dropped in.
So their design decision didn't include ZFS unless it was there and
stable in 2007, which I don't think it was.
It was in production by 2007, but has tightened up a bit since then.
Takes a long time to shake down a filesystem completely :)
--Toby
...
thanks for the ZFS suggestion though.
Jim