Hi Niels, On 1/21/26 10:33, Niels Dettenbach wrote:
I would recommend to try it - it is easy to create some single device zfs pool on a empty disk or array or even a partition.I’m wondering whether the relatively weak CPU might be a bottleneck. I seem to recall that during my load tests - especially with ZVOLs - I observed a significant number of TLB shootdowns, whereas this did not occur with raw/CCD devices. Could these observations be related?Because of compatibility issues we use linux dom0 but plan to test / migrate NetBSD here as well. So i can not guarantee for the NetBSD version. To me, ZFS is significabtly faster then LVM - at least
thanks for the interesting details - much appreciated.Using a Linux Dom0 means that all ZFS-related machinery lives in the Linux kernel. I would assume that this is a considerably more recent ZFS implementation than what I currently have available in NetBSD 10.1, and likely also more optimized from a performance perspective. That could very well explain some of the differences I observed, compared to your experiences.
I would indeed be very interested to see how the same setup behaves on identical hardware with NetBSD as Dom0, just to get a more direct comparison.
In principle, I could also try to reproduce a similar setup myself on my low-spec hardware to get some hands-on data. On the other hand, for this small home-server appliance I am trying to avoid a mixed setup. I also want to use this project as an exercise in supply-chain self-control and reduction of complexity; introducing Linux solely as Dom0 would somewhat defeat that goal and make the overall system more complex than I’d like.
Thanks again for sharing your experience. Best regards, Matthias -- Für alle, die digitale Systeme verstehen und gestalten wollen: jede Woche neue Beiträge zu Architektur, Souveränität und Systemdesign. 👉 https://www.petermann-digital.de/blog