Re: [zfs-discuss] ZIL controls in Solaris 10 U4?
This is true, but I think it's the testing bit that worries me. It's hard to lab out, and fully test an equivalent setup that has 350 active clients pounding on it to test usability and stability. One of our boxes has a boat load of special software running and various tweaks, that also would need to be validated. in other words, upgrades have tended to be painful. We don't really have any Open Solaris experience yet, and we've more or less trusted Sun to ring out the issues to minimize the problems, and make these upgrades smoother. Of course, the irony is that the requirement for this very stability is why we haven't seen the features in the ZFS code we need in Solaris 10. Thanks, Jon Mike Gerdts wrote: On Jan 30, 2008 2:27 PM, Jonathan Loran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Before ranting any more, I'll do the test of disabling the ZIL. We may have to build out these systems with Open Solaris, but that will be hard as they are in production. I would have to install the new OS on test systems and swap out the drives during scheduled down time. Ouch. Live upgrade can be very helpful here, either for upgrading or applying a flash archive. Once you are comfortable that Nevada performs like you want, you could prep the new OS on alternate slices or broken mirrors. Activating the updated OS should take only a few seconds longer than a standard "init 6". Failback is similarly easy. I can't remember the last time I swapped physical drives to minimize the outage during an upgrade. -- - _/ _/ / - Jonathan Loran - - -/ / /IT Manager - - _ / _ / / Space Sciences Laboratory, UC Berkeley -/ / / (510) 643-5146 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - __/__/__/ AST:7731^29u18e3 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Memory Corruption
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 If a machine has very obvious memory corruption due to bad ram, is there anything beyond scrub that can verify the integrity of a pool? Am I correct in assuming that scrub will fix checksum errors, but not metadata errors? - -- Christopher Gorski mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cgorski.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkek2qIACgkQzUExD/R9ryrgPACeNGBt0Sw6VtF3lZfzO1apL283 QhUAni1n/XukShvJfv/SY4s8e8e/vbxi =+8il -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Case #65841812
I'm not an Oracle expert but I don't think Oracle checksumming can correct data. If you have ZFS checksums enabled, and you're mirroring in your zpools, then ZFS can self-correct as long the checksum on the other half of the mirror is good. Mertol Ozyoney wrote: > Don't take my words as an expert advice, as I am newbie when it comes to > ZFS. > > If I am not mistaken, if you are only using Oracle on the particular Zpol, > Oracle Checksum offers better protection against data corruption. > You can disable ZFS checksums. > > Best regards > Mertol > > > Mertol Ozyoney > Storage Practice - Sales Manager > > Sun Microsystems, TR > Istanbul TR > Phone +902123352200 > Mobile +905339310752 > Fax +90212335 > Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Macdonald - > Sun Microsystem > Sent: 01 Şubat 2008 Cuma 15:31 > To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [zfs-discuss] Case #65841812 > > Below is my customers issue. I am stuck on this one. I would appreciate > if someone could help me out on this. Thanks in advance! > > > > ZFS Checksum feature: > > I/O checksum is one of the main ZFS features; however, there is also > block checksum done by Oracle. This is > good when utilizing UFS since it does not do checksums, but with ZFS it > can be a waste of CPU time. > Suggestions have been made to change the Oracle db_block_checksum > parameter to false which may give > Significant performance gain on ZFS. > > What are Sun's stance and/or suggestions on making this change on the > ZFS side as well as making the changes on the Oracle side. > > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Case #65841812
Don't take my words as an expert advice, as I am newbie when it comes to ZFS. If I am not mistaken, if you are only using Oracle on the particular Zpol, Oracle Checksum offers better protection against data corruption. You can disable ZFS checksums. Best regards Mertol Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212335 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Macdonald - Sun Microsystem Sent: 01 Şubat 2008 Cuma 15:31 To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [zfs-discuss] Case #65841812 Below is my customers issue. I am stuck on this one. I would appreciate if someone could help me out on this. Thanks in advance! ZFS Checksum feature: I/O checksum is one of the main ZFS features; however, there is also block checksum done by Oracle. This is good when utilizing UFS since it does not do checksums, but with ZFS it can be a waste of CPU time. Suggestions have been made to change the Oracle db_block_checksum parameter to false which may give Significant performance gain on ZFS. What are Sun's stance and/or suggestions on making this change on the ZFS side as well as making the changes on the Oracle side. -- Scott MacDonald - Sun Support Services _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/Technical Support Engineer _/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ Mon - Fri 8:00am - 4:30pm EST _/ _/_/ _/_/ Ph: 1-800-872-4786 (option 2 & case #) _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] M I C R O S Y S T E M S alias: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.sun.com/service/support If you need immediate assistance please call 1-800-USA-4-SUN, option 2 and the case number. If I am unavailable, and you need immediate assistance, please press 0 for more options. To track package delivery, call Logistics at 1(800)USA-1SUN, option 1 Thank you for using SUN. ___ 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] ZIL controls in Solaris 10 U4?
On Jan 30, 2008 2:27 PM, Jonathan Loran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Before ranting any more, I'll do the test of disabling the ZIL. We may > have to build out these systems with Open Solaris, but that will be hard > as they are in production. I would have to install the new OS on test > systems and swap out the drives during scheduled down time. Ouch. Live upgrade can be very helpful here, either for upgrading or applying a flash archive. Once you are comfortable that Nevada performs like you want, you could prep the new OS on alternate slices or broken mirrors. Activating the updated OS should take only a few seconds longer than a standard "init 6". Failback is similarly easy. I can't remember the last time I swapped physical drives to minimize the outage during an upgrade. -- 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] Booting Solaris on ZFS fiel system
On Feb 2, 2008, at 03:16, Jayakrishna wrote: > is it possible to create a ZFS file system & boot the Solaris OS > on the ZFS file system. Is this supported ? If not when it will be > supported. Does booting on ZFS partition is supported on any other > platform eg x86. This was just discussed the other day on this list: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-January/ thread.html#45336 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS configuration for a thumper
On Feb 1, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Marion Hakanson wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> Depending on needs for space vs. performance, I'd probably pixk >> eithr 5*9 or >> 9*5, with 1 hot spare. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >> How you can check the speed (I'm totally newbie on Solaris) > > We're deploying a new Thumper w/750GB drives, and did space vs > performance > tests comparing raidz2 4*11 (2 spares, 24TB) with 7*6 (4 spares, > 19TB). > Here are our bonnie++ and filebench results: > http://acc.ohsu.edu/~hakansom/thumper_bench.html > Very cool that we're starting to see more filebench results. FYI, you can use the '-c' option to compare results from various runs and have one single report to look at. eric ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware RAID vs. ZFS RAID
John-Paul Drawneek wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Vincent Fox wrote: >> | So the point is, a JBOD with a flash drive in one >> (or two to mirror >> the ZIL) of the slots would be a lot SIMPLER. >> >> I guess a USB pendrive would be slower than a >> harddisk. Bad performance >> for the ZIL. >> >> > > Does any one have any data on this? > +1 Inquiring minds want to know. :) -Kyle ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZIL controls in Solaris 10 U4?
Someone had tell me that s10u5 will not contain your need SSD or NVRAM separate for zfs intent log. "Finally, s10u5 will only contain a small part of bugfix. But s10u6 will be a quite huge wad of features/fixes." Set nocacheflush=1 will huge improve your nfs client's performance when use a NVRAM based zfs server.there is a blog which show you how to change the intelligent arrays ignore the nfs commit request flush to the stable storage devices. http://blogs.digitar.com/jjww/index.php?blogid=3&archive=2006-12 This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] tricking install tools with quota and reservation
Hi, I understands the upgrade issue surrounding the patching and upgrade tools. Can I get around this with some trickery using quota and reservation? I would quota and reserve for a pool/somezonepath some capacity, say 10GB, and in this way allocate a fixed capacity per zonepath. Will this work, or will the patching & upgrade tool not even run if they detect that zones are on zfs? CT ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Booting Solaris on ZFS fiel system
Hi, Solaris 8/07 does not support zfs boot. ZFS boot support currently only available on Solaris Express (Nevada) on x86. Rgds, Andre W. Jayakrishna wrote: > Hi , > > I have the following machine > sun4v sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-T1000 > > & Solaris 10 8/07 OS , is it possible to create a ZFS file system & boot the > Solaris OS on the ZFS file system. Is this supported ? If not when it will be > supported. Does booting on ZFS partition is supported on any other platform > eg x86. > > Could any body please clarify. > > Regards > Jayakrishna.K > > > 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware RAID vs. ZFS RAID
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Vincent Fox wrote: > | So the point is, a JBOD with a flash drive in one > (or two to mirror > the ZIL) of the slots would be a lot SIMPLER. > > I guess a USB pendrive would be slower than a > harddisk. Bad performance > for the ZIL. > Does any one have any data on this? > - -- > Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ > _/_/_/_/_/_/ > argo.es http://www.argo.es/~jcea/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ >_/_/ _/_/ > ber / xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/_/_/ > _/_/_/_/_/ > _/_/ _/_/_/_/ > _/_/ _/_/ > re not so easy" _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ > _/_/ > My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/_/_/_/ > _/_/ _/_/ > mor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - > Leibniz > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - > http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iQCVAwUBR6ImAplgi5GaxT1NAQJy6QQAm865PjzCGcJb70HMgrwDDO > VHz3+kLvwA > JlLA2icsMp+FdbuSO1xYU2AYejxFYTxzjrwLyi/vqbaDMM+HZzkOPR > k8TXsgBPB+ > 2aHQArFfS3ih3ZYakW0A0x5h35vykeu/Cl9aRjOrCSERkVsqjkXnQS > ceGKSdgz5J > mMPWKBUWnyI= > =UoBx > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discu > ss This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Booting Solaris on ZFS fiel system
Hi , I have the following machine sun4v sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-T1000 & Solaris 10 8/07 OS , is it possible to create a ZFS file system & boot the Solaris OS on the ZFS file system. Is this supported ? If not when it will be supported. Does booting on ZFS partition is supported on any other platform eg x86. Could any body please clarify. Regards Jayakrishna.K This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
