To expand on the subject line, I have inherited an Acer laptop on which I
intend to install Linux.
I think the machine spec should be OK for most linux distros...Core 2 duo
T5600, 4GB, 120GB, Nvidia graphics.
I am considering replacing the 120GB drive with an SSD, as it should
smarten up the performance a tad and probably improve battery life a bit
Are there issues with running Linux from an SSD, that one needs to take
into account when first installing/partitioning/whatever?
Terry Duell wrote:
> Type II PC card" slot, not sure if they are related.
> The laptop is an Acer 5630 series, from about 2006. **
Seems to be a PCMCIA Card see:
seems like the PCMCIA interface is too slow; so they never developed
SSD's for them;
you may however be able to get an SSD with an IDE interface;
and also BIOS support would be handy ! :-)
regards Rohan McLeod
On 05/11/12 10:35, hannah commodore wrote:
> On 05/11/2012, at 10:07, Toby Corkindale <toby.corkindale(a)strategicdata.com.au> wrote:
>> There are some tools around that'll benchmark different block sizes
>> to work out the appropriate value, too. However note that this issue
>> only seemed to be a *big* issue for earlier generation SSDs.. the
>> current ones seem to cope pretty well regardless.
> What are these utils? Have you used them?
> I always have difficulty aligning blocks when installing new machines, and would love to get more insight into the operation and its effects
It's been a little while since I used them, but yeah, I have.
I think this was the tool I used:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 09:01:49PM -0700, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Russell Coker <russell(a)coker.com.au> wrote:
> > I'm looking at converting some Xen servers to ZFS. This includes a
> > couple of servers for a reasonable size mail store (8,000,000 files
> > and 600G of Maildir storage).
> > For much of the Xen on ZFS stuff I'll just use zvols for block
> > devices and then use regular Linux filesystems such as Ext3 inside
> > them. This isn't particularly efficient but for most DomUs it
> > doesn't matter at all. Most of the DomUs have little disk access
> > as they don't do much writing and have enough cache to cover most
> > reads.
> > For the mail spool a zvol would be a bad idea, fsck on a 400G Ext3/4
> > filesystem is a bad thing and having the double filesystem overhead
> > of Ext3/4 on top of a zvol is going to suck for the most disk
> > intensive filesystem.
> zvol is more like an LVM logical volume than a filesystem, so the
> overhead isn't nearly as much as this comment suggests.
> That said, running ext3 (especially) or ext4 on top of it is going to
> be slower, and means you can't use the RAID style features of ZFS, and
> you give up object level checksums.
that's not exactly true - the guest won't know anything about the ZFS
features, but the ZFS file-server certainly will....the zvol will be
a chunk of allocated space from one of the zpools on the system. it
can optionally be sparse-allocated (for thin-provisioning, greatly
reduces space used, but performance can suffer). The zvol has all the
benefits of the zfs pool, including snapshotting and cloning, COW,
error checking and recovery, SSD read and write caching. The zvol can
be backed up (or moved to another ZFS server) with 'zfs send' & 'zfs
receive'. It can also be exported as an iscsi volume (e.g. so that a
remote virtualisation cpu node can access the volume storage on the zfs
cloning is particularly useful for VMs - in short, set up a
'template' VM image, clean it up (e.g. run 'apt-get clean', delete
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules, and so on), snapshot it, and
then clone the snapshot whenever you need a new VM.
you could even, for example, build a squeeze 6.0 VM template, snapshot
it, then later boot it up and upgrade to 6.01, 6.02, ..., 6.06, and
have a cleaned up snapshot of each point-release, any of which could be
cloned into a new VM at any time.
>From the guest VM's point-of-view, it's just a disk with nothing special
ext3 or ext4 performance in the guest will be similar to performance if
the guest were given an LVM lv.
I haven't done any benchmarking to compare zvol with lv (mostly because
and I can't afford to add 4 drives to my ZFS server just to test LVM lv
vs ZFS zvol performance), but I can give a subjective anecdote that the
performance improvement from using a ZFS zvol instead of a qcow2 disk
image is about the same as using an LVM lv instead of a qcow2 file.
i.e. *much* faster.
if i had to guess, i'd say that there are probably some cases where LVM
(with its nearly direct raw access to the underlying disks) would be
faster than ZFS zvols but in most cases, ZFS' caching, compression, COW
and so on would give the performance advantage to ZFS.
ZFS's other advantages, especially lightweight and unlimited snapshots,
make it worth using over LVM anyway.
FYI, here are the details on one of several zvols of various sizes that
I have on my home ZFS server. They're all used by KVM virtual machines.
# zfs get all export/sid
NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
export/sid type volume -
export/sid creation Sun Mar 25 14:19 2012 -
export/sid used 5.16G -
export/sid available 694G -
export/sid referenced 1.91G -
export/sid compressratio 1.69x -
export/sid reservation none default
export/sid volsize 5G local
export/sid volblocksize 8K -
export/sid checksum on default
export/sid compression on inherited from export
export/sid readonly off default
export/sid copies 1 default
export/sid refreservation 5.16G local
export/sid primarycache all default
export/sid secondarycache all default
export/sid usedbysnapshots 0 -
export/sid usedbydataset 1.91G -
export/sid usedbychildren 0 -
export/sid usedbyrefreservation 3.25G -
export/sid logbias latency default
export/sid dedup off default
export/sid mlslabel none default
export/sid sync standard default
export/sid refcompressratio 1.69x -
export/sid written 1.91G -
Note that this zvol has compression enabled - this would be a good
choice for a mail server's storage disk - mail is highly compressible.
depending on available RAM in the server and the kind of mail typically
received (e.g. multiple copies of the same email), de-duping the zvol
may also be worthwhile.
> > Any suggestions?
> I would aim to run ZFS in the mail domU, and treat the zvol as a
> "logical volume" block device. You will have some overhead from the
> double checksums, but robust performance. It treats the underlying
> dom0 ZFS as a fancy LVM, essentially. You probably also need to
> allocate substantially more memory to the domU than you would
That's really not needed. Most VMs just need fast, reliable storage,
and know or care exactly what the underlyingstorage is (nor should they
have to) - it's abstracted away as a virtio disk, /dev/vda or /dev/vdb
or as an iscsi disk.
There may be some exceptions where the VM needs to run ZFS itself
on a bunch of zvols, but the only real use-case i've found is for
experimenting with and testing zfs itself (e.g. i've created numerous
zvols of a few hundred MB each and used them in a VM to create a zpool
being able to snapshot and zfs send within the VM itself could be useful.
OTOH rsync provides a similar incremental backup.
craig sanders <cas(a)taz.net.au>