Eric D. Mudama writes:
> On Tue, Jan 20 at 21:35, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20 at 9:04, Richard Elling wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes. And I think there are many more use cases which are not
> >> yet characterized. What we do know is that using an SSD for
> >> the separate ZIL log works
Eric D. Mudama writes:
> On Mon, Jan 19 at 23:14, Greg Mason wrote:
> >So, what we're looking for is a way to improve performance, without
> >disabling the ZIL, as it's my understanding that disabling the ZIL
> >isn't exactly a safe thing to do.
> >
> >We're looking for the best way to
Nicholas Lee writes:
> Another option to look at is:
> set zfs:zfs_nocacheflush=1
> http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide
>
> Best option is to get a a fast ZIL log device.
>
>
> Depends on your pool as well. NFS+ZFS means zfs will wait for write
> comple
Greg Mason writes:
> We're running into a performance problem with ZFS over NFS. When working
> with many small files (i.e. unpacking a tar file with source code), a
> Thor (over NFS) is about 4 times slower than our aging existing storage
> solution, which isn't exactly speedy to begin with
On Tue, Jan 20 at 21:35, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20 at 9:04, Richard Elling wrote:
>>
>> Yes. And I think there are many more use cases which are not
>> yet characterized. What we do know is that using an SSD for
>> the separate ZIL log works very well for a large number of cases.
>>
On Tue, Jan 20 at 9:04, Richard Elling wrote:
>
> Yes. And I think there are many more use cases which are not
> yet characterized. What we do know is that using an SSD for
> the separate ZIL log works very well for a large number of cases.
> It is not clear to me that the efforts to characteriz
d...@yahoo.com said:
> Any recommendations for an SSD to work with an X4500 server? Will the SSDs
> used in the 7000 series servers work with X4500s or X4540s?
The Sun System Handbook (sunsolve.sun.com) for the 7210 appliance (an
X4540-based system) lists the "logzilla" device with this fine pri
Any recommendations for an SSD to work with an X4500 server? Will the SSDs
used in the 7000 series servers work with X4500s or X4540s?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.open
Good observations, Eric, more below...
Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19 at 23:14, Greg Mason wrote:
>> So, what we're looking for is a way to improve performance, without
>> disabling the ZIL, as it's my understanding that disabling the ZIL
>> isn't exactly a safe thing to do.
>>
>> We'r
On Mon, Jan 19 at 23:14, Greg Mason wrote:
>So, what we're looking for is a way to improve performance, without
>disabling the ZIL, as it's my understanding that disabling the ZIL
>isn't exactly a safe thing to do.
>
>We're looking for the best way to improve performance, without
>sacrificing
>
> Good idea. Thor has a CF slot, too, if you can find a high speed
> CF card.
> -- richard
We're already using the CF slot for the OS. We haven't really found
any CF cards that would be fast enough anyways :)
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discu
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009, Greg Mason wrote:
> The current solution we are considering is disabling the cache
> flushing (as per a previous response in this thread), and adding one
> or two SSD log devices, as this is similar to the Sun storage
> appliances based on the Thor. Thoughts?
You need to add
Greg Mason wrote:
> So, what we're looking for is a way to improve performance, without
> disabling the ZIL, as it's my understanding that disabling the ZIL isn't
> exactly a safe thing to do.
>
> We're looking for the best way to improve performance, without
> sacrificing too much of the safet
So, what we're looking for is a way to improve performance, without
disabling the ZIL, as it's my understanding that disabling the ZIL
isn't exactly a safe thing to do.
We're looking for the best way to improve performance, without
sacrificing too much of the safety of the data.
The current
Greg Mason wrote:
> We're running into a performance problem with ZFS over NFS. When working
> with many small files (i.e. unpacking a tar file with source code), a
> Thor (over NFS) is about 4 times slower than our aging existing storage
> solution, which isn't exactly speedy to begin with (17
Another option to look at is:
set zfs:zfs_nocacheflush=1
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide
Best option is to get a a fast ZIL log device.
Depends on your pool as well. NFS+ZFS means zfs will wait for write
completes before responding to a sync NFS write ops. I
We're running into a performance problem with ZFS over NFS. When working
with many small files (i.e. unpacking a tar file with source code), a
Thor (over NFS) is about 4 times slower than our aging existing storage
solution, which isn't exactly speedy to begin with (17 minutes versus 3
minutes)
17 matches
Mail list logo
