Re: [zfs-discuss] unable to mount zfs file system..pl help
Hi Ian, It's there in the subject line. I am unable to see the zfs file system in df output. # zfs get all pool1/fs1 NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE pool1/fs1 type filesystem - pool1/fs1 creation Fri Aug 12 1:44 2011 - pool1/fs1 used 21K- pool1/fs1 available 228G - pool1/fs1 referenced21K- pool1/fs1 compressratio 1.00x - pool1/fs1 mounted no - pool1/fs1 quota none default pool1/fs1 reservation none default pool1/fs1 recordsize128K default pool1/fs1 mountpoint/vik local pool1/fs1 sharenfs offdefault pool1/fs1 checksum on default pool1/fs1 compression offdefault pool1/fs1 atime on default pool1/fs1 devices on default pool1/fs1 exec on default pool1/fs1 setuidon default pool1/fs1 readonly offdefault pool1/fs1 zoned offdefault pool1/fs1 snapdir hidden default pool1/fs1 aclinheritrestricted default pool1/fs1 canmount on default pool1/fs1 xattr on default pool1/fs1 copies1 default pool1/fs1 version 5 - pool1/fs1 utf8only off- pool1/fs1 normalization none - pool1/fs1 casesensitivity sensitive - pool1/fs1 vscan offdefault pool1/fs1 nbmandoffdefault pool1/fs1 sharesmb offdefault pool1/fs1 refquota none default pool1/fs1 refreservationnone default pool1/fs1 primarycache alldefault pool1/fs1 secondarycachealldefault pool1/fs1 usedbysnapshots 0 - pool1/fs1 usedbydataset 21K- pool1/fs1 usedbychildren0 - pool1/fs1 usedbyrefreservation 0 - pool1/fs1 logbias latencydefault pool1/fs1 dedup offdefault pool1/fs1 mlslabel none default pool1/fs1 sync standard default Rgds Vikash -Original Message- From: Ian Collins [mailto:i...@ianshome.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 2:15 AM To: Vikash Gupta Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] unable to mount zfs file system..pl help On 08/12/11 08:25 AM, Vikash Gupta wrote: > > # uname -a > > Linux testbox 2.6.18-194.el5 #1 SMP Tue Mar 16 21:52:39 EDT 2010 > x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > # rpm -qa|grep zfs > > zfs-test-0.5.2-1 > > zfs-modules-0.5.2-1_2.6.18_194.el5 > > zfs-0.5.2-1 > > zfs-modules-devel-0.5.2-1_2.6.18_194.el5 > > zfs-devel-0.5.2-1 > > # zfs list > > NAMEUSED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > > pool1 120K 228G21K /pool1 > > pool1/fs121K 228G21K /vik > You haven't said what your problem is (what commands did you use and what errors you get?)! -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson > > Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL? It's MLC based, but I > understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up > significantly by increasing the overprovisioning to 20% (dropping > usable capacity to 80%). > > Anyone have experience with this? I think most purposes are actually better suited to disabling the ZIL completely. But of course you need to understand it and make an intelligent decision yourself in your particular case. Figure it like this... Suppose you have a 6Gbit bus. Suppose you have an old OS which flushes TXG's maximum every 30 sec (as opposed to the more current 5 sec)... that means the absolute max data you could possibly have sitting in the log device is 6gbit * 30sec = 180Gbit = 22 Gbytes. Leave yourself some breathing room, and figure a comfortable size is 30G usable. Intel 320's look like they start at 40G, so you're definitely safe overprovisioning 25% or higher. I cannot speak to any actual performance increase resulting from this tweak. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs destory snapshot takes an hours.
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn > > Unfortunately, if dedup was previously enabled, the damage was already > done since dedup is baked into your pool. The situation may improve > over time as dedup blocks are gradually eliminated but this depends on > how often the data gets overwritten and how many old snapshots are > deleted. No matter how you cut it, unless you want to "zpool destroy," there is a fixed total amount of time that will be spent destroying zfs snapshots that have previously dedup data baked into them. Your only choice is when to perform that work, and broken into what granularity. Most likely you're talking about daily snapshots at this point. Where each night at midnight, some time will be spent destroying the oldest daily snapshot. Most likely the best thing for you to do is simply to do nothing, and allow 2 hours every night at midnight, until those old snaps are all gone. But if you wanted, you could destroy more snapshots each night, and get it all over with sooner. Or something like that. > The alternative is to install a lot more RAM, or install a SSD as a > L2ARC device. RAM (ARC) and SSD (L2ARC) are only going to help prevent re-reading the blocks from disk after they've been read once. No matter what, if you're talking about time to destroy snapshots, you're going to have to spend time reading (and erasing) those blocks from disk. So infinite ram and infinite SSD aren't going to help you at this point. Given that it's already been created with dedup, and the DDT is not currently this instant already in cache. I mean... Yes, it's marginally possible to imagine some benefit, if you install enough ram or cache, you could read all the contents of the snapshot during the day so it will still be warm in cache at night when the snap gets destroyed, or something like that. Maybe able to spread the workload out across less critical hours of the day. But like I said. "Marginal." I doubt it. Most likely the best thing for you to do is simply do nothing, and wait for it to go away in the upcoming weeks, a little bit each night. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zpool replace malfunction how to correct?
Hello, I have an EON server installed on which a drive mysteriously went offline a few time, so I decided to replace the drive with one I connected to another port. Unfortunately the replace operation failed, I think because of hardware issues with the replacement drive. I bought a new replacement drive, but now the pool is degraded, and I can't seem to clear the status of the pool in order to rebuild with this new device. The unreliable drive is c2t5d0, the replacement drive was c2t7d0 Here are a few screenshots that will help describe the status of the system. # cfgadm Ap_Id Type Receptacle Occupant Condition sata0/0::dsk/c1t0d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata0/1::dsk/c1t1d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata0/2::dsk/c1t2d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata0/3::dsk/c1t3d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata0/4::dsk/c1t4d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata0/5::dsk/c1t5d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata0/6sata-portemptyunconfigured ok sata0/7sata-portemptyunconfigured ok sata1/0::dsk/c2t0d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata1/1::dsk/c2t1d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata1/2::dsk/c2t2d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata1/3::dsk/c2t3d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata1/4::dsk/c2t4d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata1/5::dsk/c2t5d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata1/6::dsk/c2t6d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata1/7disk connectedunconfigured unknown usb0/1 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb0/2 usb-inputconnectedconfigured ok usb0/3 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb0/4 unknown emptyunconfigured ok # zpool status -v pool: tank state: DEGRADED scrub: resilver completed after 0h0m with 0 errors on Thu Aug 11 04:29:00 2011 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM tankDEGRADED 0 0 0 raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t0d0p0ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t1d0p0ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t4d0p0ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t3d0p0ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t2d0p0ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t5d0p0ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1-1 DEGRADED 0 0 0 c2t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 replacing-3 DEGRADED 0 0 0 c2t5d0ONLINE 0 0 0 9.43M resilvered 17980209657994758716 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 was /dev/dsk/c2t7d0s0 c2t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 cache c2t6d0ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors At this point I'd appreciate suggestions on how to proceed to fix this issue. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] unable to mount zfs file system..pl help
On 08/12/11 08:25 AM, Vikash Gupta wrote: # uname -a Linux testbox 2.6.18-194.el5 #1 SMP Tue Mar 16 21:52:39 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux # rpm -qa|grep zfs zfs-test-0.5.2-1 zfs-modules-0.5.2-1_2.6.18_194.el5 zfs-0.5.2-1 zfs-modules-devel-0.5.2-1_2.6.18_194.el5 zfs-devel-0.5.2-1 # zfs list NAMEUSED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT pool1 120K 228G21K /pool1 pool1/fs121K 228G21K /vik You haven't said what your problem is (what commands did you use and what errors you get?)! -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] unable to mount zfs file system..pl help
# uname -a Linux testbox 2.6.18-194.el5 #1 SMP Tue Mar 16 21:52:39 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux # rpm -qa|grep zfs zfs-test-0.5.2-1 zfs-modules-0.5.2-1_2.6.18_194.el5 zfs-0.5.2-1 zfs-modules-devel-0.5.2-1_2.6.18_194.el5 zfs-devel-0.5.2-1 # zfs list NAMEUSED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT pool1 120K 228G21K /pool1 pool1/fs121K 228G21K /vik [root@nofclo038]/# zfs get all pool1/fs1 NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE pool1/fs1 type filesystem - pool1/fs1 creation Fri Aug 12 1:44 2011 - pool1/fs1 used 21K- pool1/fs1 available 228G - pool1/fs1 referenced21K- pool1/fs1 compressratio 1.00x - pool1/fs1 mounted no - pool1/fs1 quota none default pool1/fs1 reservation none default pool1/fs1 recordsize128K default pool1/fs1 mountpoint/vik local pool1/fs1 sharenfs offdefault pool1/fs1 checksum on default pool1/fs1 compression offdefault pool1/fs1 atime on default pool1/fs1 devices on default pool1/fs1 exec on default pool1/fs1 setuidon default pool1/fs1 readonly offdefault pool1/fs1 zoned offdefault pool1/fs1 snapdir hidden default pool1/fs1 aclinheritrestricted default pool1/fs1 canmount on default pool1/fs1 xattr on default pool1/fs1 copies1 default pool1/fs1 version 5 - pool1/fs1 utf8only off- pool1/fs1 normalization none - pool1/fs1 casesensitivity sensitive - pool1/fs1 vscan offdefault pool1/fs1 nbmandoffdefault pool1/fs1 sharesmb offdefault pool1/fs1 refquota none default pool1/fs1 refreservationnone default pool1/fs1 primarycache alldefault pool1/fs1 secondarycachealldefault pool1/fs1 usedbysnapshots 0 - pool1/fs1 usedbydataset 21K- pool1/fs1 usedbychildren0 - pool1/fs1 usedbyrefreservation 0 - pool1/fs1 logbias latencydefault pool1/fs1 dedup offdefault pool1/fs1 mlslabel none default pool1/fs1 sync standard default Rgds Vikash ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 01:10:07PM -0700, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/12/11 08:00 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL? It's MLC based, but I > > understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up > > significantly by increasing the overprovisioning to 20% (dropping > > usable capacity to 80%). > > > A log device doesn't have to be larger than a few GB, so that shouldn't > be a problem. I've found even low cost SSDs make a huge difference to > the NFS write performance of a pool. We've been using the X-25E (SLC-based). It's getting hard to find, and since we're trying to stick to Intel drives (Nexenta certifies them), and Intel doesn't have a new SLC drive available until late September, we're hoping an overprovisioned 320 could fill the gap until then and perform at least as well as the X-25E. Ray ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?
On 08/12/11 08:00 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL? It's MLC based, but I understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up significantly by increasing the overprovisioning to 20% (dropping usable capacity to 80%). A log device doesn't have to be larger than a few GB, so that shouldn't be a problem. I've found even low cost SSDs make a huge difference to the NFS write performance of a pool. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?
Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL? It's MLC based, but I understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up significantly by increasing the overprovisioning to 20% (dropping usable capacity to 80%). Anyone have experience with this? Ray ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs destory snapshot takes an hours.
On 08/12/11 01:35 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Nix wrote: Yes, I have enabled the dedup on the pool. I will off the dedup and will try to delete the new created snapshot. Unfortunately, if dedup was previously enabled, the damage was already done since dedup is baked into your pool. The situation may improve over time as dedup blocks are gradually eliminated but this depends on how often the data gets overwritten and how many old snapshots are deleted. The alternative is to install a lot more RAM, or install a SSD as a L2ARC device. On a system with both, I recently timed 147 minutes to destroy a 2.2T filesystem that was q 95% duplicate of another. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs send & delegated permissions
After replicating a pool with zfs send/recv I've found out I cannot perform some zfs on those datasets anymore. The datasets had permissions set via `zfs allow'. To verify assumption I did $ zfs allow blah create tank/foo $ zfs allow tank/foo Permissions on tank/foo Local+Descendent permissions: user blah create $ zfs snapshot tank/foo@send $ zfs send -p tank/foo@send | zfs recv tank/bar $ zfs allow tank/bar [nothing] $ zfs create -sV1g tank/foo $ zfs create -sV1g tank/bar $ zpool create foo zvol/tank/foo $ zpool create bar zvol/tank/bar $ zfs allow blah create foo $ zfs allow foo Permissions on foo Local+Descendent permissions: user blah create $ zfs snapshot -r foo@send $ zfs send -R foo@send | zfs recv -F bar $ zfs allow bar [nothing] So, what are permissions if not properties? And why they're not sent unlike say user/group quotas? -- ZFSv28 as of FreeBSD 9.0-BETA1 r224776M amd64 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs destory snapshot takes an hours.
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011, Nix wrote: Yes, I have enabled the dedup on the pool. I will off the dedup and will try to delete the new created snapshot. Unfortunately, if dedup was previously enabled, the damage was already done since dedup is baked into your pool. The situation may improve over time as dedup blocks are gradually eliminated but this depends on how often the data gets overwritten and how many old snapshots are deleted. The alternative is to install a lot more RAM, or install a SSD as a L2ARC device. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] OpenSolaris Package Manager Information Required!!
I am not able to install packages from the package manager on opensolaris. Even after connecting to the internet. It says preparation failed. Also how do I include new repositories to my package manager?? Please help, I m new to Solaris !! -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs destory snapshot takes an hours.
Hi Ian, Yes, I have enabled the dedup on the pool. I will off the dedup and will try to delete the new created snapshot. - Nix -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs destory snapshot takes an hours.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ian Collins
>>
>> > I am facing issue with zfs destroy, this takes almost 3 Hours to
>> delete the snapshot of size 150G.
>> >
>> Do you have dedup enabled?
>
> I have always found, zfs destroy takes some time. zpool destroy takes no
> time.
>
> Although zfs destroy takes some time, it's not terrible unless you have
> dedup enabled. If you have dedup enabled, then yes it's terrible, as Ian
> suggested.
I have found that the time to destroy a snapshot or dataset is
directly related to the number of objects and not the size. A dataset
or snapshot with millions of small files will take a very long time
(hours, but not usually days).
--
{1-2-3-4-5-6-7-}
Paul Kraus
-> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
-> Sound Designer: Frankenstein, A New Musical
(http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=123170297765140)
-> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
-> Technical Advisor, RPI Players
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
