Re: [zfs-discuss] Disabling COMMIT at NFS level, or disabling ZIL on a per-filesystem basis
Hi, >> - The ZIL exists on a per filesystem basis in ZFS. Is there an RFE >> already >>that asks for the ability to disable the ZIL on a per filesystem >> basis? > > Yes: 6280630 zil synchronicity good, thanks for the pointer! > Though personally I've been unhappy with the exposure that zil_disable > has got. > It was originally meant for debug purposes only. So providing an official > way to make synchronous behaviour asynchronous is to me dangerous. IMHO, the need here is to give admins control over the way they want their file servers to behave. In this particular case, the admin argues that he knows what he's doing, that he doesn't want his NFS server to behave more strongly than a local filesystem and that he deserves control of that behaviour. Ideally, there would be an NFS option that lets customers choose whether they want to honor COMMIT requests or not. Disabling ZIL on a per filesystem basis is only the second best solution, but since that CR already exists, it seems to be the more realistic route. Thanks, Constantin -- Constantin Gonzalez Sun Microsystems GmbH, Germany Principal Field Technologisthttp://blogs.sun.com/constantin Tel.: +49 89/4 60 08-25 91 http://google.com/search?q=constantin+gonzalez Sitz d. Ges.: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, 85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] (ZFS) file corruption with HAStoragePlus
Good morning, i experience file corruption on a zfs in a two node Cluster. The Filesystem holds the datafile of a VirtualBox windows-guest instance. It is placed in one resourcegroup together with the gds-scripts which manage the virtual-machine startup and probe: clresourcegroup create vb1 clresource create -t SUNW.HAStoragePlus \ -g vb1 \ -p Zpools=vb1 \ -p AffinityOn=True vb1-storage clresource create -g vb1 -t SUNW.gds \ [..] -p stop_signal=9 -p Failover_enabled=true \ -p Resource_dependencies=vb1-storage vb1-vms After some days of operations (and many failovers) the virtual-disk-datafile is corrupted and the zfs does not mount any more: Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried EVENT-TIME: Thu Oct 23 09:56:08 CEST 2008 Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried PLATFORM: PowerEdge 1850, CSN: 9Z7MV1J, HOSTNAME: siegfried Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried SOURCE: zfs-diagnosis, REV: 1.0 Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried EVENT-ID: 3e0a4051-cd05-cce8-b0bb-c4c165cc4fcc Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried DESC: The number of checksum errors associated with a ZFS device Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried exceeded acceptable levels. Refer to http://sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-GH for more information. Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried AUTO-RESPONSE: The device has been marked as degraded. An attempt Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried will be made to activate a hot spare if available. Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried IMPACT: Fault tolerance of the pool may be compromised. Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried REC-ACTION: Run 'zpool status -x' and replace the bad device. # zpool status -xv pool: vb1 state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data corruption. Applications may be affected. action: Restore the file in question if possible. Otherwise restore the entire pool from backup. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-8A scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM vb1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t600D02300088824BC4228807d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files: /vb1/vb1/vhd/vb1_vhd1.vdi SunOS Version: 5.11 snv_97 i86pc i386 i86pc ClusterExpress Version: 08/20/2008 (build from source) Storage: SAN Luns via scsi_vhci Any suggestions? Best wishes, Armin -- 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] Disabling COMMIT at NFS level, or disabling ZIL on a per-filesystem basis
Hi, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Neil Perrin wrote: >> On 10/22/08 10:26, Constantin Gonzalez wrote: >>> 3. Disable ZIL[1]. This is of course evil, but one customer pointed out to >>> me >>> that if a tar xvf were writing locally to a ZFS file system, the writes >>> wouldn't be synchronous either, so there's no point in forcing NFS users >>> to having a better availability experience at the expense of >>> performance. > > The conclusion reached here is quite seriously wrong and no Sun > employee should suggest it to a customer. If the system writing to a I'm not suggesting it to any customer. Actually, I argued quite a long time with the customer, trying to convince him that "slow but correct" is better. The conclusion above is a conscious decision by the customer. He says that he does not want NFS to turn any write into a synchronous write, he's happy if all writes are asynchronous, because in this case the NFS server is a backup to disk device and if power fails he simply restarts the backup 'cause he has the data in multiple copies anyway. > local filesystem reboots then the applications which were running are > also lost and will see the new filesystem state when they are > restarted. If an NFS server sponteneously reboots, the applications > on the many clients are still running and the client systems are using > cached data. This means that clients could do very bad things if the > filesystem state (as seen by NFS) is suddenly not consistent. One of > the joys of NFS is that the client continues unhindered once the > server returns. Yes, we're both aware of this. In this particular situation, the customer would restart his backup job (and thus the client application) in case the server dies. Thanks for pointing out the difference, this is indeed an important distinction. Cheers, Constantin -- Constantin Gonzalez Sun Microsystems GmbH, Germany Principal Field Technologisthttp://blogs.sun.com/constantin Tel.: +49 89/4 60 08-25 91 http://google.com/search?q=constantin+gonzalez Sitz d. Ges.: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, 85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Disabling COMMIT at NFS level, or disabling ZIL on a per-filesystem basis
Hi, yes, using slogs is the best solution. Meanwhile, using mirrored slogs from other servers' RAM-Disks running on UPSs seem like an interesting idea, if the reliability of UPS-backed RAM is deemed reliable enough for the purposes of the NFS server. Thanks for siggesting this! Cheers, Constantin Ross wrote: > Well, it might be even more of a bodge than disabling the ZIL, but how about: > > - Create a 512MB ramdisk, use that for the ZIL > - Buy a Micro Memory nvram PCI card for £100 or so. > - Wait 3-6 months, hopefully buy a fully supported PCI-e SSD to replace the > Micro Memory card. > > The ramdisk isn't an ideal solution, but provided you don't export the pool > with it offline, it does work. We used it as a stop gap solution for a > couple of weeks while waiting for a Micro Memory nvram card. > > Our reasoning was that our server's on a UPS and we figured if something > crashed badly enough to take out something like the UPS, the motherboard, > etc, we'd be loosing data anyway. We just made sure we had good backups in > case the pool got corrupted and crossed our fingers. > > The reason I say wait 3-6 months is that there's a huge amount of activity > with SSD's at the moment. Sun said that they were planning to have flash > storage launched by Christmas, so I figure there's a fair chance that we'll > see some supported PCIe cards by next Spring. > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Constantin Gonzalez Sun Microsystems GmbH, Germany Principal Field Technologisthttp://blogs.sun.com/constantin Tel.: +49 89/4 60 08-25 91 http://google.com/search?q=constantin+gonzalez Sitz d. Ges.: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, 85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Disabling COMMIT at NFS level, or disabling ZIL on a per-filesystem basis
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Constantin Gonzalez wrote: > > Yes, we're both aware of this. In this particular situation, the customer > would restart his backup job (and thus the client application) in case the > server dies. So it is ok for this customer if their backup becomes silently corrupted and the backup software continues running? Consider that some of the backup files may have missing or corrupted data in the middle. Your customer is quite dedicated in that he will monitor the situation very well and remember to reboot the backup system, correct any corrupted files, and restart the backup software whenever the server panics and reboots. A properly built server should be able to handle NFS writes at gigabit wire-speed. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] Disabling COMMIT at NFS level, or disabling ZIL on a per-filesystem basis
Hi, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Constantin Gonzalez wrote: >> >> Yes, we're both aware of this. In this particular situation, the customer >> would restart his backup job (and thus the client application) in case >> the >> server dies. > > So it is ok for this customer if their backup becomes silently corrupted > and the backup software continues running? Consider that some of the > backup files may have missing or corrupted data in the middle. Your > customer is quite dedicated in that he will monitor the situation very > well and remember to reboot the backup system, correct any corrupted > files, and restart the backup software whenever the server panics and > reboots. This is what the customer told me. He uses rsync and he is ok with restarting the rsync whenever the NFS server restarts. > A properly built server should be able to handle NFS writes at gigabit > wire-speed. I'm advocating for a properly built system, believe me :). Cheers, Constantin -- Constantin Gonzalez Sun Microsystems GmbH, Germany Principal Field Technologisthttp://blogs.sun.com/constantin Tel.: +49 89/4 60 08-25 91 http://google.com/search?q=constantin+gonzalez Sitz d. Ges.: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, 85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Disabling COMMIT at NFS level, or disabling ZIL on a per-filesystem basis
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Constantin Gonzalez wrote: > > This is what the customer told me. He uses rsync and he is ok with restarting > the rsync whenever the NFS server restarts. Then remind your customer to tell rsync to inspect the data rather than trusting time stamps. Rsync will then run quite a bit slower but at least it will catch a corrupted file. There is still the problem that the client OS may have cached data which it thinks is correct but no longer matches what is on the server. This may result in rsync making wrong decisions. A better approach is to run rsync on the server so that there is rsync to rsync communication rather than rsync to NFS. This can result in far better performance and without the NFS sychronous write problem. For my own backups, I initiate rsync on the server side and have a special secure rsync service set up on the clients so that the server sucks files from the clients. This works very well and helps with administration because any error conditions will be noted in just one place. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS scalability in terms of file system count (or lack thereof) in S10U6
On 10/23/08 08:19, Paul B. Henson wrote: On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Pramod Batni wrote: Why does creating a new ZFS filesystem require enumerating all existing ones? This is to determine if any of the filesystems in the dataset are mounted. Ok, that leads to another question, why does creating a new ZFS filesystem require determining if any of the existing filesystems in the dataset are mounted :)? I could see checking the parent filesystems, but why the siblings? I am not sure. All the checking is done as part of the libshare's sa_init which is calling into sa_get_zfs_shares(). In any case a bug can be filed on this. Should I open a sun support call to request such a bug? I guess I should wait until U6 is released, I don't have support for SXCE... You could do that else I can open a bug for you citing the Nevada build [b97] you are using. Pramod Thanks... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] (ZFS) file corruption with HAStoragePlus
Hello Armin, Thursday, October 23, 2008, 10:13:23 AM, you wrote: AO> Good morning, AO> i experience file corruption on a zfs in a two node Cluster. The AO> Filesystem holds the datafile of a VirtualBox windows-guest AO> instance. It is placed in one resourcegroup together with the AO> gds-scripts which manage the virtual-machine startup and probe: AO> clresourcegroup create vb1 AO> clresource create -t SUNW.HAStoragePlus \ AO> -g vb1 \ AO> -p Zpools=vb1 \ AO> -p AffinityOn=True vb1-storage AO> clresource create -g vb1 -t SUNW.gds \ AO> [..] AO> -p stop_signal=9 -p Failover_enabled=true \ AO> -p Resource_dependencies=vb1-storage vb1-vms AO> After some days of operations (and many failovers) the AO> virtual-disk-datafile is corrupted and the zfs does not mount any more: AO> Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried EVENT-TIME: Thu Oct 23 09:56:08 CEST 2008 AO> Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried PLATFORM: PowerEdge 1850, CSN: 9Z7MV1J, HOSTNAME: siegfried AO> Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried SOURCE: zfs-diagnosis, REV: 1.0 AO> Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried EVENT-ID: AO> 3e0a4051-cd05-cce8-b0bb-c4c165cc4fcc AO> Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried DESC: The number of checksum errors associated with a ZFS device AO> Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried exceeded acceptable levels. Refer to AO> http://sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-GH for more information. AO> Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried AUTO-RESPONSE: The device has been marked as degraded. An attempt AO> Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried will be made to activate a hot spare if available. AO> Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried IMPACT: Fault tolerance of the pool may be compromised. AO> Oct 23 09:56:08 siegfried REC-ACTION: Run 'zpool status -x' and replace the bad device. AO> # zpool status -xv AO> pool: vb1 AO> state: ONLINE AO> status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data AO> corruption. Applications may be affected. AO> action: Restore the file in question if possible. Otherwise restore the AO> entire pool from backup. AO>see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-8A AO> scrub: none requested AO> config: AO> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM AO> vb1 ONLINE 0 0 0 AO> c4t600D02300088824BC4228807d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 AO> errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files: AO> /vb1/vb1/vhd/vb1_vhd1.vdi AO> SunOS Version: 5.11 snv_97 i86pc i386 i86pc AO> ClusterExpress Version: 08/20/2008 (build from source) AO> Storage: SAN Luns via scsi_vhci AO> Any suggestions? If you can then try to get some kind of redundancy provided by ZFS (mirror?). Looks like your controller/array/whatever corrupted some data. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zpool cross mount
Hi experts,
Short question
What happen if we have cross zpool mount ?
meaning :
zpool A -> should be mounted in /A
zpool B -> should be mounted in /A/B
=> is there in zfs an automatic mechanism during solaris 10 boot that
prevent the import of pool B ( mounted /A/B ) before trying to import A
pool or do we have to legacy mount and file /etc/vfstab
Regards,
Laurent
--
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
_. `--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,'
__(il),-''(li),'__((!.-'_
Burnotte Laurent Sun Microsystems System Support Engineer
Phone: (+352)49113377
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool cross mount
Laurent Burnotte wrote: > Hi experts, > > Short question > > What happen if we have cross zpool mount ? > > meaning : > > zpool A -> should be mounted in /A > zpool B -> should be mounted in /A/B I have exactly that situation on my home system: Where A is the boot/root pool (rpool) and B is my data pool (store) /usr/local comes from pool B and is mounted ontop of /usr which comes from pool A. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool cross mount
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Laurent Burnotte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > => is there in zfs an automatic mechanism during solaris 10 boot that > prevent the import of pool B ( mounted /A/B ) before trying to import A > pool or do we have to legacy mount and file /etc/vfstab > This is fine if the pool from which /A is mounted is "guaranteed" to be present, online, and have /A mounted. Where /A is from the root pool, you should be safe most of the time. If not, set the canmount promptery of the "Pool B /A/B" dataset to noauto, otherwise it may bet mounted without /A being mounted, which depending on your situation can be a minor irritation or a serious problem. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Disabling COMMIT at NFS level, or disabling ZIL on a per-filesystem basis
No problem. I didn't use mirrored slogs myself, but that's certainly a step up for reliability. It's pretty easy to create a boot script to re-create the ramdisk and re-attach it to the pool too. So long as you use the same device name for the ramdisk you can add it each time with a simple "zpool replace pool ramdisk" On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Constantin Gonzalez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > yes, using slogs is the best solution. > > Meanwhile, using mirrored slogs from other servers' RAM-Disks running on > UPSs > seem like an interesting idea, if the reliability of UPS-backed RAM is > deemed > reliable enough for the purposes of the NFS server. > > Thanks for siggesting this! > > Cheers, > Constantin > > Ross wrote: >> >> Well, it might be even more of a bodge than disabling the ZIL, but how >> about: >> >> - Create a 512MB ramdisk, use that for the ZIL >> - Buy a Micro Memory nvram PCI card for £100 or so. >> - Wait 3-6 months, hopefully buy a fully supported PCI-e SSD to replace >> the Micro Memory card. >> >> The ramdisk isn't an ideal solution, but provided you don't export the >> pool with it offline, it does work. We used it as a stop gap solution for a >> couple of weeks while waiting for a Micro Memory nvram card. >> >> Our reasoning was that our server's on a UPS and we figured if something >> crashed badly enough to take out something like the UPS, the motherboard, >> etc, we'd be loosing data anyway. We just made sure we had good backups in >> case the pool got corrupted and crossed our fingers. >> >> The reason I say wait 3-6 months is that there's a huge amount of activity >> with SSD's at the moment. Sun said that they were planning to have flash >> storage launched by Christmas, so I figure there's a fair chance that we'll >> see some supported PCIe cards by next Spring. >> -- >> This message posted from opensolaris.org >> ___ >> zfs-discuss mailing list >> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > -- > Constantin Gonzalez Sun Microsystems GmbH, > Germany > Principal Field Technologist > http://blogs.sun.com/constantin > Tel.: +49 89/4 60 08-25 91 > http://google.com/search?q=constantin+gonzalez > > Sitz d. Ges.: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, 85551 > Kirchheim-Heimstetten > Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 > Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
I'm looking to buy some new hardware to build a home ZFS based NAS. I know ZFS can be quite CPU/mem hungry and I'd appreciate some opinions on the following combination: Intel Essential Series D945GCLF2 Kingston ValueRAM DIMM 2GB PC2-5300U CL5 (DDR2-667) (KVR667D2N5/2G) Firstly, does it sound like a reasonable combination to run OpenSolaris? Will Solaris make use of both processors? / all cores? Is it going to be enough power to run ZFS? I read that ZFS prefers 64bit, but it's not clear to me if the above board will provide 64bit support. Also I already have 2 SATA II disks to throw in (using both onboard SATA II ports), but ideally I would like to add a OS suitable PCI SATA card to add maybe another 4 disks. Any suggestions on a suitable card please? Cheers Peter -- 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 scalability in terms of file system count (or lack thereof) in S10U6
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Pramod Batni wrote: > On 10/23/08 08:19, Paul B. Henson wrote: > > > > Ok, that leads to another question, why does creating a new ZFS filesystem > > require determining if any of the existing filesystems in the dataset are > > mounted :)? > > I am not sure. All the checking is done as part of the libshare's sa_init > which is calling into sa_get_zfs_shares(). It does make a big difference whether or not sharenfs is enabled, I haven't finished my testing, but at 5000 filesystems it takes about 30 seconds to create a new filesystem and over 30 minutes to reboot if they are shared, but only 7 seconds to make a filesystem and about 15 minutes to reboot if they are not. > You could do that else I can open a bug for you citing the Nevada > build [b97] you are using. I would greatly appreciate it if you could open the bug, I don't have an opensolaris bugzilla account yet and you'd probably put better technical details in it anyway :). If you do, could you please let me know the bug# so I can refer to it once S10U6 is out and I confirm it has the same behavior? Thanks much... -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | [EMAIL PROTECTED] California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
I'm running ZFS on nevada (b94 and b98) on two machines at home, both with 4 gig ram. one has a quad core intel core2 w/ ECC ram, the other has normal RAM and an athlon 64 dual-core low power. both seem to be working great. On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Peter Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm looking to buy some new hardware to build a home ZFS based NAS. I know > ZFS can be quite CPU/mem hungry and I'd appreciate some opinions on the > following combination: > > Intel Essential Series D945GCLF2 > Kingston ValueRAM DIMM 2GB PC2-5300U CL5 (DDR2-667) (KVR667D2N5/2G) > > Firstly, does it sound like a reasonable combination to run OpenSolaris? > > Will Solaris make use of both processors? / all cores? > > Is it going to be enough power to run ZFS? > > I read that ZFS prefers 64bit, but it's not clear to me if the above board > will provide 64bit support. > > Also I already have 2 SATA II disks to throw in (using both onboard SATA II > ports), but ideally I would like to add a OS suitable PCI SATA card to add > maybe another 4 disks. Any suggestions on a suitable card please? > > Cheers > Peter > -- > 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] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
It depends on what your doing. I got a AMD Sempron Processor LE-1100 (1.9Ghz) doing NAS for mythtv and seems to do ok. If the board you quote is what your getting I think it is 64bit chip - intel site says its a Atom 330. Solaris will should use all its cores/threads - intel have added a load of code to opensolaris not sure if Atom stuff was in it. Think your out of luck for PCI SATA cards - not seen anything good about it. Sil hardware is buggy, but its got the driver support. -- 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 + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
I've been looking at this board myself for the same thing The blog below is regarding the D945GCLF but looking at the two, it looks like the processor is the only thing that is different (single core vs. dual core). http://blogs.sun.com/PotstickerGuru/entry/solaris_running_on_intel_atom -- 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 + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
thanks for all the feedback. Some followup questions: If OS will see all 4 cores, will it also make use of all 4 cores for ZFS. ie is ZFS fully multi threaded? Is there any point to run ZFS over just two 2 disks? without the extra sata ports I'm thinking I may have to abandon this idea. The plan was to use the internal ide just for a small boot disk and cdrom. I don't think it would be a good idea to mix ide and sata zfs, agreed? We'll I'll do some more searching, maybe there is another quad core board out there with 8 sata ports, 4GB ram support and passive cooled north bridge :) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
