> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Liu
> Sent: 星期四, 三月 24, 2016 18:26
> To: 'Chris Siebenmann'; Richard Jahnel
> Cc: omnios-discuss@lists.omniti.com
> Subject: RE: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with ashift=12
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Liu
> Sent: 星期一, 三月 28, 2016 16:57
> To: 'Chris Siebenmann'; 'Richard Jahnel'
> Cc: 'omnios-discuss@lists.omniti.com'
> Subject: RE: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with ashift=12
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> &
> On Mar 23, 2016, at 6:37 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2016, Richard Elling wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:49 AM, Richard Jahnel wrote:
>>>
>>> It should be noted that using a 512e disk as a 512n disk subjects
> -Original Message-
> From: Chris Siebenmann [mailto:c...@cs.toronto.edu]
> Sent: 星期三, 三月 23, 2016 23:33
> To: Richard Jahnel
> Cc: Chris Siebenmann; Fred Liu; omnios-discuss@lists.omniti.com
> Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with ashift=12
>
> > It
al Message-
> From: OmniOS-discuss [mailto:omnios-discuss-boun...@lists.omniti.com] On
> Behalf Of Chris Siebenmann
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 9:36 AM
> To: Fred Liu <fred_...@issi.com>
> Cc: omnios-discuss@lists.omniti.com
> Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with
0-6270
-Original Message-
From: OmniOS-discuss [mailto:omnios-discuss-boun...@lists.omniti.com] On Behalf
Of Chris Siebenmann
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 9:36 AM
To: Fred Liu <fred_...@issi.com>
Cc: omnios-discuss@lists.omniti.com
Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e wi
> > The sd.conf whitelist also requires a reboot to activate if you need
> > to add a new entry, as far as I know.
> >
> > (Nor do I know what happens if you have some 512n disks and
> > some 512e disks, both correctly recognized and in different
> > pools, and now you need to
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@richardelling.com]
> Sent: 星期三, 三月 23, 2016 4:53
> To: Chris Siebenmann
> Cc: Fred Liu; omnios-discuss@lists.omniti.com
> Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with ashift=12
>
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Chris Siebenmann wrote:
>
>>> This implicitly assumes that the only reason to set ashift=12 is
>>> if you are currently using one or more drives that require it. I
>>> strongly disagree with this view. Since ZFS cannot currently replace
>>> a
> > This implicitly assumes that the only reason to set ashift=12 is
> > if you are currently using one or more drives that require it. I
> > strongly disagree with this view. Since ZFS cannot currently replace
> > a 512n drive with a 512e one, I feel [...]
>
> *In theory* this replacement
> -Original Message-
> From: OmniOS-discuss [mailto:omnios-discuss-boun...@lists.omniti.com] On
> Behalf Of Richard Elling
> Sent: 星期二, 三月 22, 2016 3:19
> To: Richard Jahnel
> Cc: omnios-discuss@lists.omniti.com
> Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with ashif
> -Original Message-
> From: OmniOS-discuss [mailto:omnios-discuss-boun...@lists.omniti.com] On
> Behalf Of Richard Elling
> Sent: 星期二, 三月 22, 2016 3:21
> To: Bob Friesenhahn
> Cc: omnios-discuss@lists.omniti.com
> Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with ashif
> -Original Message-
> From: OmniOS-discuss [mailto:omnios-discuss-boun...@lists.omniti.com] On
> Behalf Of Hanno Hirschberger
> Sent: 星期一, 三月 21, 2016 17:02
> To: omnios-discuss@lists.omniti.com
> Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with ashift=12
>
> O
> -Original Message-
> From: OmniOS-discuss [mailto:omnios-discuss-boun...@lists.omniti.com] On
> Behalf Of Jim Klimov
> Sent: 星期二, 三月 22, 2016 2:11
> To: Hanno Hirschberger; omnios-discuss@lists.omniti.com
> Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with ashift=12
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: OmniOS-discuss [mailto:omnios-discuss-boun...@lists.omniti.com] On
> Behalf Of Chris Siebenmann
> Sent: 星期二, 三月 22, 2016 3:27
> To: Richard Elling
> Cc: omnios-discuss@lists.omniti.com
> Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with ashi
> > Adding the ashift argument to zpool was discussed every few years
> > and so far was always deemed not enterprisey enough for the Solaris
> > heritage, so the setup to tweak sd driver reports and properly rely
> > on that layer was pushed instead.
>
> The issue is that once a drive model lies,
> Behalf Of Richard Elling
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 1:54 PM
> To: Jim Klimov <jimkli...@cos.ru>
> Cc: omnios-discuss@lists.omniti.com
> Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with ashift=12
>
>
>> On Mar 21, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Jim Klimov <jimkl
> On Mar 21, 2016, at 12:19 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016, Richard Elling wrote:
>>>
>>> Adding the ashift argument to zpool was discussed every few years and so
>>> far was always deemed not enterprisey enough for the Solaris heritage, so
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016, Richard Elling wrote:
Adding the ashift argument to zpool was discussed every few years and so far
was always deemed not enterprisey enough for the Solaris heritage, so the setup
to tweak sd driver reports and properly rely on that layer was pushed instead.
The issue is
> On Mar 21, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
>
> 21 марта 2016 г. 10:02:03 CET, Hanno Hirschberger
> пишет:
>> On 21.03.2016 08:00, Fred Liu wrote:
>>> So that means illumos can handle 512n and 4kn automatically and
>> properly?
>>
>>
21 марта 2016 г. 10:02:03 CET, Hanno Hirschberger
пишет:
>On 21.03.2016 08:00, Fred Liu wrote:
>> So that means illumos can handle 512n and 4kn automatically and
>properly?
>
>Not necessarily as far as I know. Sometime drives are emulating 512
>blocks and don't
On 21.03.2016 08:00, Fred Liu wrote:
So that means illumos can handle 512n and 4kn automatically and properly?
Not necessarily as far as I know. Sometime drives are emulating 512
blocks and don't properly tell the OS about that and Illumos ZFS is
aligning the drives with ashift=9 which leads
g<mailto:zfs-disc...@list.zfsonlinux.org>
Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with ashift=12
Hi Fred.
Definitely, the ashift parameter has been around on the illumos for a couple of
years.
thanks,
Geoff
On 16-03-20 05:21 PM, Fred Liu wrote:
The ashift parameter doesn't apply in il
Fred Liu; omnios-discuss
> Cc: zfs-disc...@list.zfsonlinux.org <mailto:zfs-disc...@list.zfsonlinux.org>
> Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn or 512e with ashift=12
>
>
>
> Hi Fred.
>
> Definitely, the ashift parameter has been around on the illumos for a couple
> of yea
So, you can “zpool create –o ashift=12” in illumos? I can’t do that in smartos
at least….
From: Geoff Nordli [mailto:geoff.nor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Geoff Nordli
Sent: 星期一, 三月 21, 2016 10:59
To: Fred Liu; omnios-discuss
Cc: zfs-disc...@list.zfsonlinux.org
Subject: Re: [OmniOS-discuss] 4kn
The ashift parameter doesn't apply in illumos if my memory serves me well. It
was introduced by ZoL.
Thanks.
Fred
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 1:37 PM -0700, "Geoff Nordli"
> wrote:
Quick, question.
Any performance differences between 4Kn and 512e
Quick, question.
Any performance differences between 4Kn and 512e with ashift=12?
I am thinking there should not be, since they will both write the full
4K block size.
The workload will be virtual machines using a zvol.
thanks,
Geoff
___
27 matches
Mail list logo