[zfs-discuss] Raid Edition drive with RAIDZ
Since ZFS already has error correction, would drives that limit the time a hard drive attempts to recover from errors such as WD RE drives or Seagate ES drive be necessary? Would it be safe to use standard hard drives without the Time Limited Error Recovery feature in a RAIDZ array? 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] Cheap ZFS homeserver.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, . wrote: > Looking around there still is not a good "these cards/motherboards" work > list. the HCL is hardly ever updated, and its far more geared towards > business use than hobbyist/home use. So bearing all of that in mind I > will need the following things: > 1. At least 2 gigE nics. > > 2. At least 6 SATAII ports (and at least 6 drive slots) > 3. Reasonable price (probably going to build it myself.) I can give you another working recipe - one that may not meet your needs exactly, but one that will work nicely. This particular recipe was not a design based on a clean-sheet-of-paper - but rather, my Sun Ultra 20 motherboard died and I wanted a replacement system that would provide a classic *workstation* function while also providing (extra SATA disk drive bays for) ZFS-based storage and allow re-use of the (heavily modified) Ultra-20 parts. This is the resulting system which is *highly* satisfactory/stable as a desktop driving two LCD panels[0], while providing ZFS filespace and software development facilities and currently running 6 zones under Solaris Update 3: Motherboard: Asus A8N32-SLI Delux NB: AMD 939-pin socket CPU: AMD x4200 X2 dual-core CPU with 1Mb L2 cache per core [1] RAM: 2 * Corsair TWINX2048-3200C2PT 2Gb kit (4Gb total) Case: Antec P180 mid-tower (comes with no PSU) ZFS disks:2 * Seagate 500GB SATA ST3500641AS (on sale @ Frys) Boot disk:Western Digital 74Gb SATA WDC WD740GD-00FLA1 [1] PSU: SS-500HT (500W) [1] Graphics: 7800GT [1][3] CDROM/DVD:Plextor 716A slot-loader [1] (the only one to work with the Ultra-20 front panel) Add ins: - Gigabyte I-ram (GC-RAMDISK) with 4*Kingston KVR400X74C3A/1G DIMMs [1][2] - extra Antec TriCool 120mm 3-speed fan (front panel) The motherboard was setup using the Asus automatic overclock BIOS function set to +10% and the x4200 appears as an x4400 [4] Notes: a) Upside: The Antec P180 provides a compartment (at the bottom of the case) which includes 4-bay SATA disk drive bay in front of a 1" * 120mm fan which holds 4 * SATA drives mounted on silicon vibration dampers and the Power Supply Unit (PSU). This compartment has airflow which is separated from the main motherboard area of the case. There is extra space between the disk drives and cooling is excellent. b) Downside: The PSU wiring harness, coming upwards from the PSU/disk drive compartment, blocks off access to some of the neighbouring motherboard expansion slots. c) Upside: There are lots of disk drive bays - aside from the ones mentioned in the bottom PSU compartment. d) I found that 4 of the built-in (motherboard) SATA ports worked with no effort. The other two SATA ports did not work on first try - but no effort was expended trying to make them work. Currently the 4 working SATA ports are assigned: 1) WD740 boot drive 2) Seagate 500Gb drive (ZFS mirror) 3) Seagate 500Gb drive (ZFS mirror) 4) Gigabyte I-ram e) Downside: The build time for this box was longer that usual. Perhaps because of the extra "head scratching" time required to figure out the unusual case layout (power supply at the bottom and all wiring going vertically upwards) and the time it took to route the wiring and cable-tie everything neatly. If you decide to try this recipe, snag a 939-pin Model 165 Opteron dual-core processor (before the supply dries up completely). These are known to overclock easily and reliably to 2.6GHz+. There are many (now old) articles describing how to do this and the Asus A8N32-SLI Delux is known as a motherboard that is easy/reliable to overclock. Checkout newegg.com and zipzoomfly.com for the CPU. Hurry before they are gone!! NB: I know that the 939-pin AMD family is already EOL - but these components are rock solid and high performance. But buy the long term config your want *now*, since it will be impossible to upgrade this system later. Email me offlist if you have any questions. [0] Dell 3007WFP 30" panel running at 2560x1600 and iiyama AU5131DT running at 1600x1200 running under Twinview using the Sun/Nvidia driver version *9746 driver (twinview config provided by nvidia-config). [1] moved from the (modified) Ultra-20 [2] used to provide test zones that can be deployed pretty quickly and can provide fast swap space, if necessary. [3] BFG GeForce 7800GT OC (The OC indicates that its over-clocked) [4] # psrinfo -v Status of virtual processor 0 as of: 01/18/2007 23:16:43 on-line since 01/01/2007 21:15:39. The i386 processor operates at 2420 MHz, and has an i387 compatible floating point processor. Status of virtual processor 1 as of: 01/18/2007 23:16:43 on-line since 01/01/2007 21:15:45. The i386 processor operates at 2420 MHz, and has an i387 compatible floating point processor. Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: What SATA controllers are people using for ZFS?
Toby Thain: > > On 18-Jan-07, at 9:55 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote: > > > Hi Frank, > > > > What do they [not] support? > > Hotplug. and NCQ. and SMART. -frank 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 patches for Solaris 10U2 ?
On 1/18/07, Christophe Dupré <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've been looking for the patches to get the latest ZFS bits for S10U2, like kernel patch 108833-30, but I can't find then on sunsolve.sun.com. Latest seems to be 108833-24 Is there any other location I should look for the patches ? If you have (or download) the latest installation DVD, look in the /UpgradePatches (or similarly named) directory. Mike -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Cheap ZFS homeserver.
On 1/18/07, . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Looking around there still is not a good "these cards/motherboards" work list. the HCL is hardly ever updated, and its far more geared towards business use than hobbyist/home use. Yes, this is true. This list is the best resource I have found so far, and I have been half heartedly looking for the last three months or so. So to help you and and see if I can get some answers myself, I will post the system I am currently looking at. I have picked these parts up from mentions on the list: ASUS M2NPV-VM ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16813131014 ) AMD Sempron 64 2800+ ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16819104245 ) SYBA SD-SATA-4P PCI SATA Controller Card ( http://www.newegg.com/product/Product.asp?item=N82E16815124020 ) The sata card is only a SATA 1 card, but do I care? Do the ports on the motherboard work? (I think I saw somewhere they do in PATA compatibility mode.) As you can see I am going for bottom of the line, but it is just a box to play around with, and a gigE nas box if things work out well. So list, what do you think? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: How much do we really want zpool remove?
> Jeremy Teo wrote: > > On the issue of the ability to remove a device from > a zpool, how > > useful/pressing is this feature? Or is this more > along the line of > > "nice to have"? > > This is a pretty high priority. We are working on > it. Good news! Where is the discussion on the best approach to take? > On 18/01/2007, at 9:55 PM, Jeremy Teo wrote: > The most common reason is migration of data to new > storage > infrastructure. The experience is often that the > growth in disk size > allows the new storage to consist of fewer disks/LUNs > than the old. I agree completely. No matter how wonderful your current FC/SAS/whatever cabinet is, at some point in the future you will want to migrate to another newer/faster array with a better/faster interface, probably on fewer disks. The "just add another top level vdev" approach to growing a RAIDZ pool seems a bit myopic. > On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 10:51 -0800, Matthew Ahrens > wrote: > I'd consider it a lower priority than say, adding a > drive to a RAIDZ > vdev, but yes, being able to reduce a zpool's size by > removing devices > is quite useful, as it adds a considerable degree of > flexibility that > (we) admins crave. These two items (removing a vdev and restriping an array) are probably closely related. At the core of either operation likely will center around some metaslab_evacuate() routine which empties a metaslab and puts the data onto another metaslab. Evacuating a vdev could be no more than evacuating all of the metaslabs in the vdev. Restriping (adding/removing a data/parity disk) could be no more than progressively evacuating metaslabs with the old stripe geometry and writing the data to metaslabs with the new stripe geometry. The biggest challenge while restriping might be getting the read routine to figure out on-the-fly which geometry is in use for any particular stripe. Even so, this shouldn't be too big of a challenge: one geometry will checksum correctly and the other will not. Marty 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] How much do we really want zpool remove?
I get that part. I think I asked that question before (although not as direct) - basically you're talking about the ability to shrink volumes and/or disable/change the mirroring/redundancy options if there is space available to account for it. If this was allowed, this would also allow for a conversion from RAIDZ to RAIDZ2, or vice-versa then, correct? On 1/18/07, Erik Trimble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mike, I think you are missing the point. What we are talking about is removing a drive from a zpool, that is, reducing the zpool's total capacity by a drive. Say you have 4 drives of 100GB in size, configured in a striped mirror, capacity of 200GB usable. We're discussing the case where if the zpool's total used space is under 100GB, we could remove the second vdev (consisting of a mirror) from the zpool, and have ZFS evacuate all the data from the to-be-removed vdev before we actually remove the disks (or, maybe we simply want to reconfigure them into another zpool). In this case, after the drive remoovals, the zpool would be left with a 100GB capacity, and be a simple 2-drive mirror. What you are talking about is replacement of a drive, whether or not it is actually bad. In your instance, the zpool capacity size remains the same, and it will return to optimal performance when a new drive is inserted (and, no, there is no difference between a manual and automatic "removal" in the case of marking a drive bad for replacement). -Erik ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Cheap ZFS homeserver.
2007/1/18, . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 2. What consumer level SATAII chipsets work. 4-ports onboard is fine for now since I can always add a card later. I will need at least four ports to start. pci-e cards are highly preferred since pci-x is expensive and going to become rarer. (mark my words) Something worth mentioning is that ACHI SATA controllers will be supported in the next Nevada build. As such, I would probably look at Intel boards instead. Nvidia SATA support has been long awaited, but there is no clear indication of when, if ever it will arrive. It will still work, but with no NCQ or hot swap. Chris ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Cheap ZFS homeserver.
Couldn't this be considered a compatibility list that we can trust for OpenSolaris and ZFS? http://www.sun.com/io_technologies/ I've been looking at it for the past few days. I am looking for eSATA support options - more details below. Only 2 devices on the list show support for eSATA, both are PCI-X. One uses Infiniband, one uses an eSATA multiplier cable. I wish PCI Express would get in there. That would open up my options more... I really don't want to be limited only to internal SATA; I want to use these 5 drive eSATA-driven enclosures, like one of the below: http://www.norcotek.com/item_detail.php?categoryid=8&modelno=ds-500 http://fwdepot.com/thestore/product_info.php/products_id/1586 http://fwdepot.com/thestore/product_info.php/products_id/1325 http://fwdepot.com/thestore/product_info.php/products_id/1578 (a 10 drive one [2 eSATA ports used]) This would effectively, if I understand it right, allow for 20 drives per controller card (4 ports x 5 drives apiece) However, I don't think OpenSolaris/Solaris support these unless the Addonics eSATA PCI-X adapter supports them. I have not figured that one out yet. All I know is I want ZFS. This would be for home usage, I want something as small and quiet as possible. Otherwise I would look into getting 3u type drive shelves (which would be noisy, etc.) I have a couple other friends as well all interested in this same idea. Just waiting around for confirmation that these combinations work, or for the hardware support to grow... Anyone have any additional thoughts? I looked at the SATA thread already, didn't help me much though. On 1/18/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You must have just missed the "What SATA controllers are people using for ZFS?" thread. Not a list, but you can probably find similar components to what was recommended. I would be hestitant myself to use any other SATA card than what was recommended, however motherboard choice is probably fairly wide open. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Cheap ZFS homeserver.
On January 18, 2007 6:27:14 PM -0800 "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Looking around there still is not a good "these cards/motherboards" work list. You must have just missed the "What SATA controllers are people using for ZFS?" thread. Not a list, but you can probably find similar components to what was recommended. I would be hestitant myself to use any other SATA card than what was recommended, however motherboard choice is probably fairly wide open. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Cheap ZFS homeserver.
So after toying around with some stuff a few months back I got bogged down and set this project aside for a while. Time to revisit. Looking around there still is not a good "these cards/motherboards" work list. the HCL is hardly ever updated, and its far more geared towards business use than hobbyist/home use. So bearing all of that in mind I will need the following things: 1. At least 2 gigE nics. 2. At least 6 SATAII ports (and at least 6 drive slots) 3. Reasonable price (probably going to build it myself.) I'm not worried about hotswapping. I want to make sure the box is going to be upgradeable with decent priced parts for a while (so PCI is out). My current fileserver is 6 years old. Out of space (or close enough) and starting to become a little less stable than I would like. So without getting into all of the gory details, the things I am stuck on are the following: 1. What consumer level motherboards (not a $400 server board, I dont need that) and/or chipsets does opensolaris support at this point ? I dont want "if you compile this 3 week old version with these four changes it might work". I want "this works". I use solaris at work on all sorts of Sun hardware, but of course I cant afford Sun hardware for my house. 2. What consumer level SATAII chipsets work. 4-ports onboard is fine for now since I can always add a card later. I will need at least four ports to start. pci-e cards are highly preferred since pci-x is expensive and going to become rarer. (mark my words) So I was hoping that this board would work: http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Products/Motherboard/Products_Overview.aspx?ClassValue=Motherboard&ProductID=2287&ProductName=GA-M57SLI-S4";>HERE I'm open to suggestions. I'd prefer to use solaris and zfs, but if it cannot be easily done I will stick with Linux. 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] How much do we really want zpool remove?
Mike, I think you are missing the point. What we are talking about is removing a drive from a zpool, that is, reducing the zpool's total capacity by a drive. Say you have 4 drives of 100GB in size, configured in a striped mirror, capacity of 200GB usable. We're discussing the case where if the zpool's total used space is under 100GB, we could remove the second vdev (consisting of a mirror) from the zpool, and have ZFS evacuate all the data from the to-be-removed vdev before we actually remove the disks (or, maybe we simply want to reconfigure them into another zpool). In this case, after the drive remoovals, the zpool would be left with a 100GB capacity, and be a simple 2-drive mirror. What you are talking about is replacement of a drive, whether or not it is actually bad. In your instance, the zpool capacity size remains the same, and it will return to optimal performance when a new drive is inserted (and, no, there is no difference between a manual and automatic "removal" in the case of marking a drive bad for replacement). -Erik On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 18:01 -0800, mike wrote: > what is the technical difference between forcing a removal and an > actual failure? > > isn't it the same process? except one is manually triggered? i would > assume the same resilvering process happens when a usable drive is put > back in... > > On 1/18/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not quite. I suspect you are thinking about drive replacement rather > > than removal. > > > > Drive replacement is already supported in ZFS and the task involves > > rebuilding data on the disk from data available elsewhere. Drive > > removal involves rebalancing data from the target drive to other > > disks. The latter is non-trivial. > > > > > > -- > > Just me, > > Wire ... > > > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca14-102 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How much do we really want zpool remove?
what is the technical difference between forcing a removal and an actual failure? isn't it the same process? except one is manually triggered? i would assume the same resilvering process happens when a usable drive is put back in... On 1/18/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not quite. I suspect you are thinking about drive replacement rather than removal. Drive replacement is already supported in ZFS and the task involves rebuilding data on the disk from data available elsewhere. Drive removal involves rebalancing data from the target drive to other disks. The latter is non-trivial. -- Just me, Wire ... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How much do we really want zpool remove?
On 1/19/07, mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Would this be the same as failing a drive on purpose to remove it? I was under the impression that was supported, but I wasn't sure if shrinking a ZFS pool would work though. Not quite. I suspect you are thinking about drive replacement rather than removal. Drive replacement is already supported in ZFS and the task involves rebuilding data on the disk from data available elsewhere. Drive removal involves rebalancing data from the target drive to other disks. The latter is non-trivial. -- Just me, Wire ... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: What SATA controllers are people using for ZFS?
Hi Toby, Thanks for the links. That's interesting. I assume this goes forward to the M2s. Glad hot-swap isn't a requirement where we use them. Best Regards, Jason On 1/18/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 18-Jan-07, at 9:55 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote: > Hi Frank, > > What do they [not] support? Hotplug. See, inter alia, http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.solaris/msg/56e9e341607aa984 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.solaris/msg/9c0afc2668207d36 --Toby > We've had some various service issues on the > NICs on the original X2100...which they gave us some flack on because > we were running Gentoo. Once we proved it on Solaris 10 Update 2 (at > the time) they got on board with the problem. > > Best Regards, > Jason > > On 1/18/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On January 18, 2007 4:45:49 PM -0700 "Jason J. W. Williams" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Sun doesn't support the X2100 SATA controller on Solaris 10? That's >> > just bizarre. >> >> Not only that, their marketing is misleading (at best) on the issue. >> >> -frank >> > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: What SATA controllers are people using for ZFS?
On 18-Jan-07, at 9:55 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote: Hi Frank, What do they [not] support? Hotplug. See, inter alia, http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.solaris/msg/56e9e341607aa984 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.solaris/msg/9c0afc2668207d36 --Toby We've had some various service issues on the NICs on the original X2100...which they gave us some flack on because we were running Gentoo. Once we proved it on Solaris 10 Update 2 (at the time) they got on board with the problem. Best Regards, Jason On 1/18/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On January 18, 2007 4:45:49 PM -0700 "Jason J. W. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sun doesn't support the X2100 SATA controller on Solaris 10? That's > just bizarre. Not only that, their marketing is misleading (at best) on the issue. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: What SATA controllers are people using for ZFS?
Please don't top-post. It's annoying. On January 18, 2007 4:55:35 PM -0700 "Jason J. W. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 1/18/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On January 18, 2007 4:45:49 PM -0700 "Jason J. W. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sun doesn't support the X2100 SATA controller on Solaris 10? That's > just bizarre. Not only that, their marketing is misleading (at best) on the issue. What do they support? Marvell 88sx family. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Overview (rollup) of recent activity on zfs-discuss
For background on what this is, see: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=24416#24416 http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=25200#25200 = zfs-discuss 01/01 - 01/15 = Size of all threads during period: Thread size Topic --- - 74 RAIDZ2 vs. ZFS RAID-10 42 ZFS related (probably) hangs due to memory exhaustion(?) with snv53 37 Limit ZFS Memory Utilization 31 Solid State Drives? 25 Adding disk to a RAID-Z? 24 NFS and ZFS, a fine combination 16 zfs list and snapshots.. 14 Question: ZFS + Block level SHA256 ~= almost free CAS Squishing? 13 Thoughts on ZFS Secure Delete - without using Crypto 10 hard-hang on snapshot rename 10 ZFS over NFS extra slow? 10 ZFS direct IO 10 ZFS and HDLM 5.8 ... does that coexist well ? 10 Puzzling ZFS behavior with COMPRESS option 10 Eliminating double path with ZFS's volume manager 8 question about self healing 8 Multiple Read one Writer Filesystem 8 HOWTO make a mirror after the fact 7 optimal zpool layout? 7 What SATA controllers are people using for ZFS? 6 zfs recv 6 zfs pool in degraded state, 6 use the same zfs filesystem with differnet mountpoint 6 odd versus even 6 Solaris crashes when ZFS device disappears 6 Can someone explain this acl behavior? 6 Can ZFS solve my problem? 5 zfs clones 5 ZFS and storage array] 5 Replacing a drive in a raidz2 group 5 Help understanding some benchmark results 5 Distributed FS 4 zfs pool in degraded state, zpool offline fails with no valid replicas 4 ZFS entry in /etc/vfstab 4 ZFS --> Grub shell 4 On the SATA framework 3 using veritas dmp with ZFS (but not vxvm) 3 ZFS remote mirroring 3 ZFS reference 3 ZFS on my iPhone? 3 ZFS Hot Spare Behavior 3 Samba and ZFS ACL Question 2 zfs umount -a in a global zone 2 iSCSI on a single interface? 2 Why is "+" not allowed in a ZFS file system name ? 2 Thoughts on ZFS SecureDelete - without usingCrypto 2 Snapshots impact on performance 2 Seven questions for a newbie 2 Scrubbing on active zfs systems (many snaps per day) 2 SXCR 55 2 Resizing lun. 2 Remote Replication 2 Raidz and self-healing... 2 Mounting a ZFS clone 2 Gerard wrote: 2 Differences between ZFS and UFS. 2 Checksum errors... 1 iPod WAS::ZFS on my iPhone? 1 blog: space vs MTTDL 1 another blog: space vs U_MTBSI 1 Rebel: 'We aided bin Laden escape' 1 OT: How does them coll ZFS demos are made 1 Noemi 1 N.J. suspected as source of stench MORE ... 1 Kathy wrote: 1 I have a disk wedged in a zpool. 1 Fwd: Rebel: 'We aided bin Laden escape' 1 Extremely poor ZFS perf and other observations 1 Eliminating double path with ZFS's volumemanager 1 Difference between ZFS checksum algorithms Posting activity by person for period: # of posts By -- -- 42 rmilkowski at task.gda.pl (robert milkowski) 40 jasonjwwilliams at gmail.com (jason j. w. williams) 29 stric at acc.umu.se (tomas =?iso-8859-1?q?=d6gren?=) 27 richard.elling at sun.com (richard elling) 19 wade.stuart at fallon.com (wade stuart) 14 matthew.ahrens at sun.com (matthew ahrens) 14 eric at ijack.net (eric hill) 14 darren.moffat at sun.com (darren j moffat) 13 anton.rang at sun.com (anton b. rang) 12 mark.maybee at sun.com (mark maybee) 11 ddunham at taos.com (darren dunham) 11 dclarke at blastwave.org (dennis clarke) 9 tmcmahon2 at yahoo.com (torrey mcmahon) 9 roch.bourbonnais at sun.com (roch - pae) 9 peter.schuller at infidyne.com (peter schuller) 8 sanjeev.bagewadi at sun.com (sanjeev bagewadi) 8 rang at acm.org (anton b. rang) 8 neil.perrin at sun.com (neil perrin) 8 bart.smaalders at sun.com (bart smaalders) 8 anantha.srirama at cdc.hhs.gov (anantha n. srirama) 7 eric.kustarz at sun.com (eric kustarz) 7 bill.moore at sun.com (bill moore) 6 toby at smartgames.ca (toby thain)
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: What SATA controllers are people using for ZFS?
Hi Frank, What do they support? We've had some various service issues on the NICs on the original X2100...which they gave us some flack on because we were running Gentoo. Once we proved it on Solaris 10 Update 2 (at the time) they got on board with the problem. Best Regards, Jason On 1/18/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On January 18, 2007 4:45:49 PM -0700 "Jason J. W. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sun doesn't support the X2100 SATA controller on Solaris 10? That's > just bizarre. Not only that, their marketing is misleading (at best) on the issue. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: What SATA controllers are people using for ZFS?
On January 18, 2007 4:45:49 PM -0700 "Jason J. W. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sun doesn't support the X2100 SATA controller on Solaris 10? That's just bizarre. Not only that, their marketing is misleading (at best) on the issue. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: What SATA controllers are people using for ZFS?
Hi Frank, Sun doesn't support the X2100 SATA controller on Solaris 10? That's just bizarre. -J On 1/18/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: THANK YOU Naveen, Al Hopper, others, for sinking yourselves into the shit world of PC hardware and [in]compatibility and coming up with well qualified white box solutions for S10. I strongly prefer to buy Sun kit, but I am done waiting for Sun to support the SATA controller on the x2100. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: What SATA controllers are people using for ZFS?
THANK YOU Naveen, Al Hopper, others, for sinking yourselves into the shit world of PC hardware and [in]compatibility and coming up with well qualified white box solutions for S10. I strongly prefer to buy Sun kit, but I am done waiting for Sun to support the SATA controller on the x2100. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS patches for Solaris 10U2 ?
Of course, I meant 118833, not 108833... :-( Christophe Dupré wrote: > I've been looking for the patches to get the latest ZFS bits for S10U2, > like kernel patch 108833-30, but I can't find then on sunsolve.sun.com. > Latest seems to be 108833-24 > > Is there any other location I should look for the patches ? > > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS patches for Solaris 10U2 ?
I've been looking for the patches to get the latest ZFS bits for S10U2, like kernel patch 108833-30, but I can't find then on sunsolve.sun.com. Latest seems to be 108833-24 Is there any other location I should look for the patches ? -- Christophe Dupré Administrateur Unix et Réseau Sénior (514) 931-4433 x3078 www.accovia.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] question: zfs code size statistics
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:37:26PM +0100, Henk Langeveld wrote:
> When ZFS was first announced, one argument was how ZFS complexity and
> code size was actually significantly less than for instance, UFS+SVM.
>
> Over a year has passed, and I wonder how code size has grown since, with
> all of the features that have been added.
>
> Has anyone kept track of this? Would it be easy to generate such statistics
> from the code repository?
The attached script yields the following result on the current gate:
-
UFS: kernel= 47188 user= 40045 total= 87233
SVM: kernel= 77711 user=162522 total=240233
TOTAL: kernel=124899 user=202567 total=327466
-
ZFS: kernel= 59813 user= 27932 total= 87745
-
Note that this doesn't include ZFS-related fmd plugins or java APIs,
since UFS has no equivalent.
- Eric
--
Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock
#!/bin/ksh
if [ "z$GATE" == "z" ]; then
GATE=/ws/onnv-gate
fi
NT=Codemgr_wsdata/nametable
cd $GATE
kfufs=`egrep ^usr/src/uts/common/.*/ufs $NT | nawk '{print $1}'`
kfsvm=`egrep '^usr/src/uts/common/(io|sys)/lvm/' $NT | nawk '{print $1}'`
kfufs="$kfufs usr/src/uts/common/os/bio.c usr/src/uts/common/os/fbio.c"
ufufs=`egrep ^usr/src/cmd/fs.d/ufs/ $NT | nawk '{print $1}'`
ufsvm=`egrep '^usr/src/(cmd|lib)/lvm/' $NT | nawk '{print $1}'`
klufs=`cat $kfufs | wc -l`
klsvm=`cat $kfsvm | wc -l`
ulufs=`cat $ufufs | wc -l`
ulsvm=`cat $ufsvm | wc -l`
((tlufs=klufs+ulufs))
((tlsvm=klsvm+ulsvm))
((tk=klufs+klsvm))
((tu=ulufs+ulsvm))
((tt=tk+tu))
kfzfs=`egrep '^usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/' $NT | nawk '{print $1}'`
ufzfs=`egrep '^usr/src/(common/|cmd/|lib/lib)(zfs|zpool|zdb|zinject)/' $NT |
nawk '{print $1}'`
ufzfs_fm=`egrep ^usr/src/cmd/fm/modules/common/zfs.* $NT | nawk '{print $1}'`
klzfs=`cat $kfzfs | wc -l`
ulzfs=`cat $ufzfs $ufzfs_fm | wc -l`
((tlzfs=klzfs+ulzfs))
printf "-\n"
printf " UFS: kernel=%6d user=%6d total=%6d\n" $klufs $ulufs $tlufs
printf " SVM: kernel=%6d user=%6d total=%6d\n" $klsvm $ulsvm $tlsvm
printf "TOTAL: kernel=%6d user=%6d total=%6d\n" $tk $tu $tt
printf "-\n"
printf " ZFS: kernel=%6d user=%6d total=%6d\n" $klzfs $ulzfs $tlzfs
printf "-\n"
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] question: zfs code size statistics
When ZFS was first announced, one argument was how ZFS complexity and code size was actually significantly less than for instance, UFS+SVM. Over a year has passed, and I wonder how code size has grown since, with all of the features that have been added. Has anyone kept track of this? Would it be easy to generate such statistics from the code repository? Curious, Henk ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: How much do we really want zpool remove?
Celso wrote: > Both removing disks from a zpool and modifying raidz arrays would be very > useful. Add my vote for this. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: How much do we really want zpool remove?
Both removing disks from a zpool and modifying raidz arrays would be very useful. I would also still love to have ditto data blocks. Is there any progress on this? Celso. 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] How much do we really want zpool remove?
Would this be the same as failing a drive on purpose to remove it? I was under the impression that was supported, but I wasn't sure if shrinking a ZFS pool would work though. On 1/18/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is a pretty high priority. We are working on it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How much do we really want zpool remove?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/18/2007 01:29:23 PM: > On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 10:51 -0800, Matthew Ahrens wrote: > > Jeremy Teo wrote: > > > On the issue of the ability to remove a device from a zpool, how > > > useful/pressing is this feature? Or is this more along the line of > > > "nice to have"? > > > > This is a pretty high priority. We are working on it. > > > > --matt > > I'd consider it a lower priority than say, adding a drive to a RAIDZ > vdev, but yes, being able to reduce a zpool's size by removing devices > is quite useful, as it adds a considerable degree of flexibility that > (we) admins crave. > I would be surprised if much of the code to allow removal does not bring device adds closer to reality -- assuming device removal migrates data and resilvers to optimal stripe online.. -Wade ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How much do we really want zpool remove?
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 10:51 -0800, Matthew Ahrens wrote: > Jeremy Teo wrote: > > On the issue of the ability to remove a device from a zpool, how > > useful/pressing is this feature? Or is this more along the line of > > "nice to have"? > > This is a pretty high priority. We are working on it. > > --matt I'd consider it a lower priority than say, adding a drive to a RAIDZ vdev, but yes, being able to reduce a zpool's size by removing devices is quite useful, as it adds a considerable degree of flexibility that (we) admins crave. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca14-102 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Heavy writes freezing system
Rats, didn't proof accurately. For "UFS", I meant NFS. Rainer This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Heavy writes freezing system
Sorry, I should have qualified that "effective" better. I was specifically speaking in terms of Solaris and price. For companies without a SAN (especially using Linux), something like a NetApp Filer using UFS is the way to go, I realize. If you're running Solaris, the cost of QFS becomes a major factor. If you have a SAN, then getting a NetApp Filer seems silly. And so on. Oracle has suggested RAW disk for some time, I think. (Some?) DBA's don't seem to like it largely because they cannot see the files, and so on. ASM still has some of these limitations, but it's getting better, and DBA's are starting to get used to the new paradigms. If I remember a conversation last year correctly, OEM will become the window into some of these ideas. Once ASM has industry acceptance on a large scale, then yes, making file systems perform well especially for Oracle databases will be chasing the wind. But, that may be a while down the road. I don't know, my crystal ball got cracked during the last comet transition. ;-) Rainer 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] How much do we really want zpool remove?
Jeremy Teo wrote: On the issue of the ability to remove a device from a zpool, how useful/pressing is this feature? Or is this more along the line of "nice to have"? This is a pretty high priority. We are working on it. --matt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Heavy writes freezing system
Rainer Heilke wrote: If you plan on RAC, then ASM makes good sense. It is unclear (to me anyway) if ASM over a zvol is better than ASM over a raw LUN. Hmm. I thought ASM was really the _only_ effective way to do RAC, but then, I'm not a DBA (and don't want to be ;-) We'll be just using raw LUN's. While the zvol idea is interesting, the DBA's are very particular about making sure the environment is set up in a way Oracle will support (and not hang up when we have a problem). ASM is relatively new technology. Traditionally, OPS and RAC were built over raw devices, directly or as represented by cluster-aware logical volume managers. DBAs tend to not like raw, so Sun Cluster (Solaris Cluster) supports RAC over QFS which is a very good solution. Some Sun Cluster customers run RAC over NFS, which also works surprisingly well. Meanwhile, Oracle continues to develop ASM to appease the DBAs who want filesystem-like solutions. IMHO, in the long run, Oracle will transition many customers to ASM and this means that it probably isn't worth the effort to make a file system be the best for Oracle, at the expense of other features and workloads. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to reconfigure ZFS?
Karen Chau wrote: > How do you reconfigure ZFS on the server after an OS upgrade? I have a > ZFS pool on a 6130 storge array. > After upgrade the data on the storage array is still intact, but ZFS > configuration is gone due to new OS. > > Do I use the same commands/procedure to recreate the zpool, ie. > # zpool create canary raidz c2t1d0 c2t2d0 c2t3d0 > > Does the create command destroy data on the disks? > > --OR-- > > Should I restore /etc/*zfs*/zpool.cache on the new OS (assuming we have > a good backup)?? Have you first tried 'zfs import' ? You'll have to use the '-f' option if you didn't export the pools before the upgraded OS installation. Dana ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] How to reconfigure ZFS?
How do you reconfigure ZFS on the server after an OS upgrade? I have a ZFS pool on a 6130 storge array. After upgrade the data on the storage array is still intact, but ZFS configuration is gone due to new OS. Do I use the same commands/procedure to recreate the zpool, ie. # zpool create canary raidz c2t1d0 c2t2d0 c2t3d0 Does the create command destroy data on the disks? --OR-- Should I restore /etc/*zfs*/zpool.cache on the new OS (assuming we have a good backup)?? Thanks, -Karen -- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Heavy writes freezing system
Rainer, Have you considered looking for a patch? If you have the supported version(s) of Solaris (which it sound like you do), this may already be available in a patch. Bev. Rainer Heilke wrote: Thanks for the detailed explanation of the bug. This makes it clearer to us as to what's happening, and why (which is something I _always_ appreciate!). Unfortunately, U4 doesn't buy us anything for our current problem. Rainer This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Heavy writes freezing system
> If you plan on RAC, then ASM makes good sense. It is > unclear (to me anyway) > if ASM over a zvol is better than ASM over a raw LUN. Hmm. I thought ASM was really the _only_ effective way to do RAC, but then, I'm not a DBA (and don't want to be ;-) We'll be just using raw LUN's. While the zvol idea is interesting, the DBA's are very particular about making sure the environment is set up in a way Oracle will support (and not hang up when we have a problem). Rainer This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Heavy writes freezing system
Thanks for the detailed explanation of the bug. This makes it clearer to us as to what's happening, and why (which is something I _always_ appreciate!). Unfortunately, U4 doesn't buy us anything for our current problem. Rainer This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Heavy writes freezing system
> > This problem was fixed in snv_48 last September > and will be > > in S10_U4. U4 doesn't help us any. We need the fix now. :-( By the time U4 is out, we may even be finished (certainly well on our way) our RAC/ASM migration and this whole issue will be moot. Rainer This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Heavy writes freezing system
> Bag-o-tricks-r-us, I suggest the following in such a case: > > - Two ZFS pools > - One for production > - One for Education The DBA's are very resistant to splitting our whole environments. There are nine on the test/devl server! So, we're going to put the DB files and redo logs on separate (UFS with directio) LUN's. Binaries and backups will go onto two separate ZFS LUN's. With production, they can do their cloning at night to minimize impact. Not sure what they'll do on test/devl. The two ZFS file systems will probably also be separate zpools (political as well as juggling Hitachi disk space reasons). BTW, it wasn't the storage guys who decided the "one filesystem to rule them all" strategy, but my predecessors. It was part of the move from Clarion arrays to Hitachi. The storage folks know about, understand, and agree with us when we talk about these kinds of issues (at least, they do now). We've pushed the caching and other subsystems often enough to make this painfully clear. > Another thought is while ZFS works out its kinks why > not use the BCV or ShadowCopy or whatever IBM calls > it to create Education instance. This will reduce a > tremendous amount of I/O. This means buying more software to alleviate a short-term problem (with RAC, the whole design will be different, including moving to ASM). We have RMAN and OEM already, so this argument won't fly. > BTW, I'm curious what application using Oracle is > creating more than a million files? Oracle Financials. The application includes everything but the kitchen sink (but the bathroom sink is there!). Thanks for all of your feedback and suggestions. They all sound bang on. If we could just get all the pieces in place to move forward now, I think we'll be OK. One big issue for us will be finding the Hitachi disk space--we're pretty full-up right now. :-( Rainer This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: How much do we really want zpool remove?
I can vouch for this situation. I had to go through a long maintenance to accomplish the following: - 50 x 64GB drives in a zpool; needed to seperate out 15 of them out due to performance issues. There was no need to increase storage capacity. Because I couldn't yank 15 drives from the existing pool to create a UFS filesystem I had to go evacuate the entire 50 disk pool, recreate a new pool and the UFS filesystem, and then repopulate the filesystems. I think this feature will add to the adoption rate of ZFS. However, I feel that this shouldn't be at the top of the 'to-do' list. I'll trade this feature for some of the performance enhancements that've been discussed on this group. 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] How much do we really want zpool remove?
On 18/01/2007, at 9:55 PM, Jeremy Teo wrote: On the issue of the ability to remove a device from a zpool, how useful/pressing is this feature? Or is this more along the line of "nice to have"? Assuming we're talking about removing a top-level vdev.. I introduce new sysadmins to ZFS on a weekly basis. After 2 hours of introduction this is the single feature that they most often realise is "missing". The most common reason is migration of data to new storage infrastructure. The experience is often that the growth in disk size allows the new storage to consist of fewer disks/LUNs than the old. I can see that is will come increasingly needed as more and more storage goes under ZFS. Sure, we can put 256 quadrillion zettabytes in the pool, but if you accidentally add a disk to the wrong pool or with the wrong redundancy you have a long long wait for your tape drive :) Boyd ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] iSCSI on a single interface?
On 15/01/07, Rick McNeal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Dick Davies wrote: > Hi, are there currently any plans to make an iSCSI target created by > setting shareiscsi=on on a zvol > bindable to a single interface (setting tpgt or acls)? We're working on some more interface stuff for setting up various properties like TPGT's and ACL for the ZVOLs which are shared through ZFS. Now that I've knocked off a couple of things that have been on my plate I've got room to add some more. These definitely rank right up towards the top. Great news. For the record, the reason I asked was we have an iscsi target host with 2 NICs and for some reason clients were attempting to connect to the targets on the private interface instead of the one they were doing discovery on (which I thought was a bit odd). I tried creating a TPGT with iscsitadm, which seemed to work: vera ~ # iscsitadm list tpgt -v TPGT: 1 IP Address: 131.251.5.8 but adding a ZFS iscsi target into it gives me: vera ~ # iscsitadm modify target -p 1 tank/iscsi/second4gb iscsitadm: Error Can't call daemon which is a pity (I'm assuming it can't find the targets to modify). I've had to go back to just using iscsitadm due to time pressures, but will be watching any progress closely. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How much do we really want zpool remove?
On 18/01/07, Jeremy Teo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On the issue of the ability to remove a device from a zpool, how useful/pressing is this feature? Or is this more along the line of "nice to have"? It's very useful if you accidentally create a concat rather than mirror of an existing zpool. Otherwise you have to buy another drive :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How much do we really want zpool remove?
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 06:55:39PM +0800, Jeremy Teo wrote: > On the issue of the ability to remove a device from a zpool, how > useful/pressing is this feature? Or is this more along the line of > "nice to have"? If you think "remove a device from a zpool" = "to shrink a pool" then it is really usefull. Definitely really usefull. Do you need any example ? przemol -- Lufa dla generala. Zobacz >> http://link.interia.pl/f19e1 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] How much do we really want zpool remove?
On the issue of the ability to remove a device from a zpool, how useful/pressing is this feature? Or is this more along the line of "nice to have"? -- Regards, Jeremy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Heavy writes freezing system
Jason J. W. Williams writes: > Hi Anantha, > > I was curious why segregating at the FS level would provide adequate > I/O isolation? Since all FS are on the same pool, I assumed flogging a > FS would flog the pool and negatively affect all the other FS on that > pool? > > Best Regards, > Jason > Good point, If the problem is 6413510 zfs: writing to ZFS filesystem slows down fsync() on other files Then the seggegration to 2 filesystem on the same pool will help. But if the problem is more like 6429205 each zpool needs to monitor its throughput and throttle heavy writers then it 2 FS won't help. 2 pools probably would though. -r ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Heavy writes freezing system
If some aspect of the load is writing large amount of data into the pool (through the memory cache, as opposed to the zil) and that leads to a frozen system, I think that a possible contributor should be: |6429205||each zpool needs to monitor its throughput and throttle heavy writers| -r Anantha N. Srirama writes: > Bug 6413510 is the root cause. ZFS maestros please correct me if I'm quoting > an incorrect bug. > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] VxVM volumes in a zpool.
Hi, Was wondering if anyone had experience working with VxVM volumes in a zpool. We are using VxVM 5.0 on a Solaris 10 11/06 box. The volume is on a SAN, with two FC HBAs connected to a fabric. The setup works, but we observe a very strange message on bootup. The bootup screen is attached at the bottom of this e-mail. Strangly with all the bootup errors, zpool continues to work: zpool status pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 /dev/vx/dsk/mailstore/storage ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors Could it be the sequence at which the /dev/vx/dsk is detected by zpool? Thanking in advance. Cheers, Tan Shao Yi NOTICE: VxVM vxdmp V-5-0-34 added disk array 110352722, datype = FAS920 NOTICE: VxVM vxdmp V-5-0-34 added disk array DISKS, datype = Disk NOTICE: VxVM vxdmp V-5-3-1700 dmpnode 130/0x0 has migrated from enclosure FAKE_E NCLR_SNO to enclosure DISKS WARNING: VxVM vxio V-5-0-181 Illegal vminor encountered WARNING: VxVM vxio V-5-0-181 Illegal vminor encountered checking ufs filesystems /dev/md/rdsk/d5: is logging. servername console login: SUNW-MSG-ID: ZFS-8000-CS, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1, SEVERITY: Major EVENT-TIME: Thu Jan 18 15:19:47 SGT 2007 PLATFORM: SUNW,Sun-Fire-V240, CSN: -, HOSTNAME: recess1 SOURCE: zfs-diagnosis, REV: 1.0 EVENT-ID: 3c5a5896-df1d-6bf7-85c0-8337f788e925 DESC: A ZFS pool failed to open. Refer to http://sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-CS for mo re information. AUTO-RESPONSE: No automated response will occur. IMPACT: The pool data is unavailable REC-ACTION: Run 'zpool status -x' and either attach the missing device or restore from backup ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
