Re: [zfs-discuss] 'zfs recv' is very slow
Ian Collins wrote: Andrew Gabriel wrote: Ian Collins wrote: I've just finished a small application to couple zfs_send and zfs_receive through a socket to remove ssh from the equation and the speed up is better than 2x. I have a small (140K) buffer on the sending side to ensure the minimum number of sent packets The times I get for 3.1GB of data (b101 ISO and some smaller files) to a modest mirror at the receive end are: 1m36s for cp over NFS, 2m48s for zfs send though ssh and 1m14s through a socket. So the best speed is equivalent to 42MB/s. Can't tell from this what the limiting factor is (might be the disks). It probably is. It would be interesting to try putting a buffer (5 x 42MB = 210MB initial stab) at the recv side and see if you get any improvement. It took a while... I was able to get about 47MB/s with a 256MB circular input buffer. I think that's about as fast it can go, the buffer fills so receive processing is the bottleneck. Bonnie++ shows the pool (a mirror) block write speed is 58MB/s. When I reverse the transfer to the faster box, the rate drops to 35MB/s with neither the send nor receive buffer filling. So send processing appears to be the limit in this case. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with ZFS and ACL with GDM
On 05 December, 2008 - Brian Cameron sent me these 1,5K bytes:
I am the maintainer of GDM, and I am noticing that GDM has a problem when
running on a ZFS filesystem, as with Indiana.
When GDM (the GNOME Display Manager) starts the login GUI, it runs the
following commands on Solaris:
/usr/bin/setfacl -m user:gdm:rwx,mask:rwx /dev/audio
/usr/bin/setfacl -m user:gdm:rwx,mask:rwx /dev/audioctl
It does this because the login GUI programs are run as the gdm user,
and in order to support text-to-speech via orca, for users with
accessibility needs, the gdm user needs access to the audio device.
We were using setfacl because logindevperm(3) normally manages the
audio device permissions and we only want the gdm user to have
access on-the-fly when the GDM GUI is started.
However, I notice that when using ZFS on Indiana the above commands fail
with the following error:
File system doesn't support aclent_t style ACL's.
See acl(5) for more information on ACL styles support by Solaris.
What is the appropriate command to use with ZFS?
chmod
If different commands are needed based on the file system type, then
how can GDM determine which command to use.
Do both? :)
/Tomas
--
Tomas Ögren, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {cs,acc}.umu.se
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?
Its not me. There are people on Linux forums that wont to try out Solaris + ZFS and this is a concern, for them. What should I tell them? That it is not fixed? That they have reboot every week? Someone knows? -- 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] Problem with ZFS and ACL with GDM
However, I notice that when using ZFS on Indiana the above commands fail with the following error: File system doesn't support aclent_t style ACL's. See acl(5) for more information on ACL styles support by Solaris. What is the appropriate command to use with ZFS? You can use pathconf() with _PC_ACL_ENABLED to determine what flavor of ACL the file system supports. check out these links. http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-5167/fpathconf-2?a=view http://blogs.sun.com/alvaro/entry/detecting_the_acl_type_you The example in the blog isn't quite correct. The returned value is a bit mask, and it is possible for a file system to support multiple ACL flavors. Here is an example of pathconf() as used in acl_strip(3sec) http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/lib/libsec/common/aclutils.c#390 -Mark ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?
On 6-Dec-08, at 7:10 AM, Orvar Korvar wrote: Its not me. There are people on Linux forums that wont to try out Solaris + ZFS and this is a concern, for them. What should I tell them? That it is not fixed? That they have reboot every week? Someone knows? That it's not recommended for 32 bit systems. There may also be unfixed atomicity issues in 64-bit operations, according to past posts on this list. --Toby -- 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] SMART data
How do I get SMART data from my drives? I'm running snv_101 on AMD64. I have 6x SATA disks. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 11:31:06AM -0500, Toby Thain wrote: Its not me. There are people on Linux forums that wont to try out Solaris + ZFS and this is a concern, for them. What should I tell them? That it is not fixed? That they have reboot every week? Someone knows? That it's not recommended for 32 bit systems. There may also be unfixed atomicity issues in 64-bit operations, according to past posts on this list. Well, he's talking Linux, which means FUSE, so the issues related to 32-bit on Solaris don't apply as ZFS isn't running in kernel space which is where the horrid performance issues come from (the ARC cache and the kernel fighting for address space). Maybe it would run well under 32-but Linux? I can't speak to that as I refuse to run Linux. -brian -- Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix. -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Brian Hechinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 11:31:06AM -0500, Toby Thain wrote: Its not me. There are people on Linux forums that wont to try out Solaris + ZFS and this is a concern, for them. What should I tell them? That it is not fixed? That they have reboot every week? Someone knows? That it's not recommended for 32 bit systems. There may also be unfixed atomicity issues in 64-bit operations, according to past posts on this list. Well, he's talking Linux, which means FUSE, so the issues related to 32-bit on Solaris don't apply as ZFS isn't running in kernel space which is where the horrid performance issues come from (the ARC cache and the kernel fighting for address space). Maybe it would run well under 32-but Linux? I can't speak to that as I refuse to run Linux. -brian Solaris + ZFS and this is a concern Sounds to me like they want to try out solaris + zfs, not zfs on fuse. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 12:42:44PM -0600, Tim wrote: Solaris + ZFS and this is a concern Sounds to me like they want to try out solaris + zfs, not zfs on fuse. Ooops, misread what he said. Sorry about that. I suppose my original comment still stands then. :) -brian -- Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix. -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 'zfs recv' is very slow
Richard Elling wrote: Ian Collins wrote: Ian Collins wrote: Andrew Gabriel wrote: Ian Collins wrote: I've just finished a small application to couple zfs_send and zfs_receive through a socket to remove ssh from the equation and the speed up is better than 2x. I have a small (140K) buffer on the sending side to ensure the minimum number of sent packets The times I get for 3.1GB of data (b101 ISO and some smaller files) to a modest mirror at the receive end are: 1m36s for cp over NFS, 2m48s for zfs send though ssh and 1m14s through a socket. So the best speed is equivalent to 42MB/s. It would be interesting to try putting a buffer (5 x 42MB = 210MB initial stab) at the recv side and see if you get any improvement. It took a while... I was able to get about 47MB/s with a 256MB circular input buffer. I think that's about as fast it can go, the buffer fills so receive processing is the bottleneck. Bonnie++ shows the pool (a mirror) block write speed is 58MB/s. When I reverse the transfer to the faster box, the rate drops to 35MB/s with neither the send nor receive buffer filling. So send processing appears to be the limit in this case. Those rates are what I would expect writing to a single disk. How is the pool configured? The slow system has a single mirror pool of two SATA drives, the faster one a stripe of 4 mirrors and an IDE SD boot drive. ZFS send though ssh from the slow to the fast box takes 189 seconds, the direct socket connection send takes 82 seconds. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] How to compile mbuffer
Hi guys, i've been following the [zfs-discuss] 'zfs recv' is very slow thread and i believe i have the same issue; we get ~10MB/sec sending large incrimental data sets using zfs send | ssh | zfs recv. I'd like to try mbuffer. We're running Solaris Express Developers Edition (SunOS murray 5.11 snv_79a i86pc i386 i86pc). I found the download page http://www.maier-komor.de/mbuffer.html and i have the source files on Murray. How do i compile mbuffer for our system, and what syntax to i use to invoke it within the zfs send recv? Any help appreciated! -- Kind regards, Jules free. open. honest. love. kindness. generosity. energy. frenetic. electric. light. lasers. spinning spotlights. stage dancers. heads bathed in yellow light. silence. stillness. awareness. empathy. the beat. magic, not mushrooms. thick. tight. solid. commanding. compelling. uplifting. euphoric. ecstatic, not e. ongoing. releasing. reforming. meandering. focussing. quickening. quickening. quickening. aloft. floating. then the beat. fat exploding thick bass-line. eyes, everywhere. smiling. sharing. giving. trust. understanding. tolerance. peace. equanimity. emptiness (Earthcore, 2008) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?
Does PAE help things at all on 32-bit ? Brian Hechinger wrote: On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 12:42:44PM -0600, Tim wrote: Solaris + ZFS and this is a concern Sounds to me like they want to try out solaris + zfs, not zfs on fuse. Ooops, misread what he said. Sorry about that. I suppose my original comment still stands then. :) -brian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to compile mbuffer
Hello i've been following the [zfs-discuss] 'zfs recv' is very slow thread and i believe i have the same issue; we get ~10MB/sec sending large incrimental data sets using zfs send | ssh | zfs recv. I'd like to try mbuffer. We're running Solaris Express Developers Edition (SunOS murray 5.11 snv_79a i86pc i386 i86pc). I found the download page http://www.maier-komor.de/mbuffer.html and i have the source files on Murray. How do i compile mbuffer for our system, and what syntax to i use to invoke it within the zfs send recv? Any help appreciated! I used compile it this way: 1) wget http://www.maier-komor.de/software/mbuffer/mbuffer-20081113.tgz 2) gtar -xzvf mbuffer-20081113.tgz 3) cd mbuffer-20081113 4) ./configure --prefix=/usr/local --disable-debug CFLAGS=-O MAKE=gmake If you are on 64bit system you may want to compile 64bit version: ./configure --prefix=/usr/local --disable-debug CFLAGS=-O -m64 MAKE=gmake 5) gmake gmake install 6) /usr/local/bin/mbuffer -V Regards Mike ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Status of zpool remove in raidz and non-redundant stripes
If I remember right, the code needed for this has implications for a lot of things: - defrag - adding disks to raidz zvols - removing disks from vols - restriping volumes (to give consistent performance after expansion) In fact, I just found the question I asked a year or so back, which had a good reply from Jeff http://opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=186561 ... and while typing this, I also just found this blog post from Adam Leventhal in April, which is also related: http://blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/expand_o_matic_raid_z -- 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] Status of zpool remove in raidz and non-redundant stripes
They also mentioned this at some of the ZFS talks at LISA 2008.The general argument is that, while plenty of hobbyists are clamoring for this, not enough paying customers are asking to make it a high enough priority to get done. If you think about it, the code is not only complicated but will be incredibly hard to get right and _prove_ it's right. Maybe the ZFS guys can just borrow the algorithm from Linux mdraid's experimental CONFIG_MD_RAID5_RESHAPE: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/djbw/md.git;a=blob;f=drivers/md/raid5.c;h=224de022e7c5d6574cf46747947b3c9e326c8632;hb=HEAD#1885 -- 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 fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 01:36:35PM -0800, Joseph Mocker wrote: Does PAE help things at all on 32-bit ? No. -brian -- Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix. -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450
Thanks, but compared to what? To Windows, are you sure we can say lot of additional? To Linux, maybe, since I am not a Linux fan. To leading NAS appliances, these are not competitive advantages. opensolaris.org posted this, I would like an official answer! The Open-spirit should be encouraged, but the wrong marketing positioning messages are not!!! Please, don't bring shame to the open community. Thank you! zStorageAnalyst - Original Message - From: William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 7:35 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450 Keep in mind that if you use ZFS you get a lot of additional functionality like snapshots, compression, clones. -- 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] OpenSolaris vs Linux
Ian, Tim, again, thank you very much in answering my question. I am a bit disappointed that the whole discussion group does not have one person to stand up and say yeah, OpenSolaris absolutely outperforms Linux and Windows, because.. But I wish, one day, we can be arguing not on a basis of belief, but on a basis of facts (referencable data). I can test all I want, the results don't mean anything in official arguments because I am not VERITEST, and my firm is not funding my testings. With all the love for Sun Storage, and all the disappointments, please, keep this in mind. Thank you! zStorageAnalyst - Original Message - From: Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Joseph Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenSolaris vs Linux Joseph Zhou wrote: Thanks Ian, Tim, Ok, let me really hit one topic instead of trying to see in general what data are out there... Let's say OpenSolaris doing Samba vs. Linux doing Samba, in CIFS performance. (so I can link to the Win2008 CIFS numbers and NetApp CIFS numbers myself.) Is there any data to this specific point? I think what we are telling you is the only way to find the numbers you want for your configuration is to do your own tests. There are just too many variables for other people's data to be truly relevant. One of the benefits of Open Source is you only have to pay for your time to run tests. As Tim said, there's no point in limiting OpenSolaris to Samba. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenSolaris vs Linux
Tim, thanks, yeah, I have highlighted Sun Storage SSD, see my blog, if you are really interested. http://ideasint.blogs.com/ideasinsights/2008/10/ssd-shines-new.html note the Sun Storage comment to the blog and my reply. Happy holidays! z - Original Message - From: Tim To: Joseph Zhou Cc: Ian Collins ; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 5:22 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenSolaris vs Linux On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Joseph Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: haha, Tim, yes, I see the Open spirit in this reply! ;-) As I said, I am just exploring data. The Sun J4000 SPC1 and SPC2 benchmark results were nice, just lacking other published results with the iSCSI HBA as DAS, not as a network storage device (as 7000). Though I would attempt to say those results can be a basis for 7000 block-performance... any comment? Thanks! z I'd imagine you'll see far better performance out of the 7000 with their use of flash. Only time will tell though :) --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] help diagnosing system hang
Ethan Erchinger wrote: Here is a sample set of messages at that time. It looks like timeouts on the SSD for various requested blocks. Maybe I need to talk with Intel about this issue. Keeping everyone up-to-date, for those who care, I've RMAd the Intel drive, and will retest when the replacement arrives. I'm working under the assumption that I have a bad drive. Ethan ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450
I don't understand your statement/questions. This wasn't a response to ZFS versus every possible storage platform in the world. The original poster was asking about comparing ZFS versus hardware RAID on specific machines as mentioned in the title. AFAIK you don't get compression, snapshots and clones with standard hardware RAID cards. -- 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] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450
Yeah? http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/Controllers/Hardware/sas/value/SAS-31605/_details/Series3_FAQs.htm Snapshot is a big deal? Windows OS does that too. Compression -- where is the performance data showing compression in OpenSolaris has little overhead? Clones -- tell me the benefit of Clone when we have point-in-time copies with continuous, policy-based protection? And snapshot images are mostly writable and sync-able today? Man, I am an open storage analyst, please, tell me I am wrong! zStorageAnalyst - Original Message - From: William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:41 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450 I don't understand your statement/questions. This wasn't a response to ZFS versus every possible storage platform in the world. The original poster was asking about comparing ZFS versus hardware RAID on specific machines as mentioned in the title. AFAIK you don't get compression, snapshots and clones with standard hardware RAID cards. -- 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 implementation on SunX4150/X4450
Is Jeff Cheeney still on this list? He had an open mind. Jeff, if you can see this, tell me if I am wrong! Please! Thanks! z - Original Message - From: Joseph Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:51 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on SunX4150/X4450 Yeah? http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/Controllers/Hardware/sas/value/SAS-31605/_details/Series3_FAQs.htm Snapshot is a big deal? Windows OS does that too. Compression -- where is the performance data showing compression in OpenSolaris has little overhead? Clones -- tell me the benefit of Clone when we have point-in-time copies with continuous, policy-based protection? And snapshot images are mostly writable and sync-able today? Man, I am an open storage analyst, please, tell me I am wrong! zStorageAnalyst - Original Message - From: William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:41 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450 I don't understand your statement/questions. This wasn't a response to ZFS versus every possible storage platform in the world. The original poster was asking about comparing ZFS versus hardware RAID on specific machines as mentioned in the title. AFAIK you don't get compression, snapshots and clones with standard hardware RAID cards. -- 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 mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450
Joseph Zhou wrote: Yeah? http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/Controllers/Hardware/sas/value/SAS-31605/_details/Series3_FAQs.htm Snapshot is a big deal? Snapshot is a big deal, but you will find most hardware RAID implementations are somewhat limited, as the above adaptec only supports 4 snapshots and it is an optional feature. You will find many array vendors will be happy to charge lots of money for the snapshot feature. Windows OS does that too. Not the Windows OS I run on my laptop. But the feature seems to be best integrated on Max OSX. Compression -- where is the performance data showing compression in OpenSolaris has little overhead? If you search these archives you will find instances where compression performance is much faster than not, and you will find instances where compression has significant overhead. YMMV. As with most things, there are engineering and design trade-offs that you should consider. Clones -- tell me the benefit of Clone when we have point-in-time copies with continuous, policy-based protection? And snapshot images are mostly writable and sync-able today? In ZFS, snapshots are read-only. Clones are created from a snapshot and can be writable. We use clones extensively for OS upgrading and patching. For example, when you upgrade OpenSolaris, we clone the OS file systems and upgrade the clone, so that you can move forward or roll back to different versions. Many people use clones for virtual machines. Man, I am an open storage analyst, please, tell me I am wrong! I suggest you read the docs, particularly the ZFS Administration Guide. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs -- richard zStorageAnalyst - Original Message - From: William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:41 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450 I don't understand your statement/questions. This wasn't a response to ZFS versus every possible storage platform in the world. The original poster was asking about comparing ZFS versus hardware RAID on specific machines as mentioned in the title. AFAIK you don't get compression, snapshots and clones with standard hardware RAID cards. -- 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 mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on SunX4150/X4450
Richard, thank you so very much! This is the kind of answer I expected from Sun Storage. I will do more studies before I speak again. Happy holidays!!! z - Original Message - From: Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Joseph Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on SunX4150/X4450 Joseph Zhou wrote: Yeah? http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/Controllers/Hardware/sas/value/SAS-31605/_details/Series3_FAQs.htm Snapshot is a big deal? Snapshot is a big deal, but you will find most hardware RAID implementations are somewhat limited, as the above adaptec only supports 4 snapshots and it is an optional feature. You will find many array vendors will be happy to charge lots of money for the snapshot feature. Windows OS does that too. Not the Windows OS I run on my laptop. But the feature seems to be best integrated on Max OSX. Compression -- where is the performance data showing compression in OpenSolaris has little overhead? If you search these archives you will find instances where compression performance is much faster than not, and you will find instances where compression has significant overhead. YMMV. As with most things, there are engineering and design trade-offs that you should consider. Clones -- tell me the benefit of Clone when we have point-in-time copies with continuous, policy-based protection? And snapshot images are mostly writable and sync-able today? In ZFS, snapshots are read-only. Clones are created from a snapshot and can be writable. We use clones extensively for OS upgrading and patching. For example, when you upgrade OpenSolaris, we clone the OS file systems and upgrade the clone, so that you can move forward or roll back to different versions. Many people use clones for virtual machines. Man, I am an open storage analyst, please, tell me I am wrong! I suggest you read the docs, particularly the ZFS Administration Guide. http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs -- richard zStorageAnalyst - Original Message - From: William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 11:41 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450 I don't understand your statement/questions. This wasn't a response to ZFS versus every possible storage platform in the world. The original poster was asking about comparing ZFS versus hardware RAID on specific machines as mentioned in the title. AFAIK you don't get compression, snapshots and clones with standard hardware RAID cards. -- 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 mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450
Richard Elling wrote: Joseph Zhou wrote: Yeah? http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/Controllers/Hardware/sas/value/SAS-31605/_details/Series3_FAQs.htm Snapshot is a big deal? Snapshot is a big deal, but you will find most hardware RAID implementations are somewhat limited, as the above adaptec only supports 4 snapshots and it is an optional feature. You will find many array vendors will be happy to charge lots of money for the snapshot feature. On top of that since the ZFS snapshot is at the file system level it's much easier to use. You don't have to quiesce the file system first or hope that when you take the snapshot you get a consistent data set. I've seen plenty of folks take hw raid snapshots without locking the file system first, let alone quiescing the app, and getting garbage. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450
Torrey, now this impressive as the old days with Sun Storage. Ok, ZFS PiT is only a software solution. The Windows VSS is not only a software solution, but also a 3rd party integration standard from MS. What's your comment on ZFS PiT is better than MS PiT, in light of openness and 3rd-party integration??? Talking about garbage! z - Original Message - From: Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Joseph Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED]; William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450 Richard Elling wrote: Joseph Zhou wrote: Yeah? http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/Controllers/Hardware/sas/value/SAS-31605/_details/Series3_FAQs.htm Snapshot is a big deal? Snapshot is a big deal, but you will find most hardware RAID implementations are somewhat limited, as the above adaptec only supports 4 snapshots and it is an optional feature. You will find many array vendors will be happy to charge lots of money for the snapshot feature. On top of that since the ZFS snapshot is at the file system level it's much easier to use. You don't have to quiesce the file system first or hope that when you take the snapshot you get a consistent data set. I've seen plenty of folks take hw raid snapshots without locking the file system first, let alone quiescing the app, and getting garbage. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementationon Sun X4150/X4450
Ok, I am tired and going to bed. Thanks, Real Sun Storage folks, this is the best discussion I have had in months. I am satisfied. ;-) Goodnight, and long live the open spirit!!! zStorageAnalyst - Original Message - From: Joseph Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementationon Sun X4150/X4450 Torrey, now this impressive as the old days with Sun Storage. Ok, ZFS PiT is only a software solution. The Windows VSS is not only a software solution, but also a 3rd party integration standard from MS. What's your comment on ZFS PiT is better than MS PiT, in light of openness and 3rd-party integration??? Talking about garbage! z - Original Message - From: Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Joseph Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED]; William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450 Richard Elling wrote: Joseph Zhou wrote: Yeah? http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/Controllers/Hardware/sas/value/SAS-31605/_details/Series3_FAQs.htm Snapshot is a big deal? Snapshot is a big deal, but you will find most hardware RAID implementations are somewhat limited, as the above adaptec only supports 4 snapshots and it is an optional feature. You will find many array vendors will be happy to charge lots of money for the snapshot feature. On top of that since the ZFS snapshot is at the file system level it's much easier to use. You don't have to quiesce the file system first or hope that when you take the snapshot you get a consistent data set. I've seen plenty of folks take hw raid snapshots without locking the file system first, let alone quiescing the app, and getting garbage. ___ 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 implementation on Sun X4150/X4450
Compared to hw raid only snapshots ZFS is still, imho, easier to use. If you start talking about VSS, aka shadow copy for Windows, you're now at the fs level. I can see that VSS offers an API for 3rd parties to use but, as I literally just started reading about it, I'm not an expert. From a quick glance I think the ZFS feature set is comparable. Is there a C++ API to ZFS? Not that I know of. Do you need one? Can't think of a reason off the top of my head given the way the zpool/zfs commands work. Joseph Zhou wrote: Torrey, now this impressive as the old days with Sun Storage. Ok, ZFS PiT is only a software solution. The Windows VSS is not only a software solution, but also a 3rd party integration standard from MS. What's your comment on ZFS PiT is better than MS PiT, in light of openness and 3rd-party integration??? Talking about garbage! z - Original Message - From: Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Joseph Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED]; William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450 Richard Elling wrote: Joseph Zhou wrote: Yeah? http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/Controllers/Hardware/sas/value/SAS-31605/_details/Series3_FAQs.htm Snapshot is a big deal? Snapshot is a big deal, but you will find most hardware RAID implementations are somewhat limited, as the above adaptec only supports 4 snapshots and it is an optional feature. You will find many array vendors will be happy to charge lots of money for the snapshot feature. On top of that since the ZFS snapshot is at the file system level it's much easier to use. You don't have to quiesce the file system first or hope that when you take the snapshot you get a consistent data set. I've seen plenty of folks take hw raid snapshots without locking the file system first, let alone quiescing the app, and getting garbage. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450
Ok, Torrey, I like you, so one more comment before I go to bed -- Please go study the EMC NetWorker 7.5, and why EMC can claim leadership in VSS support. Then, if you still don't understand the importance of VSS, just ask me in an open fashion, I will teach you. The importance of storage in system and application optimization can be very significant. You do coding, do you know what's TGT from IBM in COBOL, to be able to claim enterprise technology? If not, please study. http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/pdthelp/v1r1/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.entcobol.doc_4.1/PGandLR/ref/rpbug10.htm Open Storage is a great concept, but we can only win with realy advantages, not fake marketing lines. I hope everyone enjoyed the discussion. I did. zStorageAnalyst - Original Message - From: Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Joseph Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED]; William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 2:40 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450 Compared to hw raid only snapshots ZFS is still, imho, easier to use. If you start talking about VSS, aka shadow copy for Windows, you're now at the fs level. I can see that VSS offers an API for 3rd parties to use but, as I literally just started reading about it, I'm not an expert. From a quick glance I think the ZFS feature set is comparable. Is there a C++ API to ZFS? Not that I know of. Do you need one? Can't think of a reason off the top of my head given the way the zpool/zfs commands work. Joseph Zhou wrote: Torrey, now this impressive as the old days with Sun Storage. Ok, ZFS PiT is only a software solution. The Windows VSS is not only a software solution, but also a 3rd party integration standard from MS. What's your comment on ZFS PiT is better than MS PiT, in light of openness and 3rd-party integration??? Talking about garbage! z - Original Message - From: Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Joseph Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED]; William D. Hathaway [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450 Richard Elling wrote: Joseph Zhou wrote: Yeah? http://www.adaptec.com/en-US/products/Controllers/Hardware/sas/value/SAS-31605/_details/Series3_FAQs.htm Snapshot is a big deal? Snapshot is a big deal, but you will find most hardware RAID implementations are somewhat limited, as the above adaptec only supports 4 snapshots and it is an optional feature. You will find many array vendors will be happy to charge lots of money for the snapshot feature. On top of that since the ZFS snapshot is at the file system level it's much easier to use. You don't have to quiesce the file system first or hope that when you take the snapshot you get a consistent data set. I've seen plenty of folks take hw raid snapshots without locking the file system first, let alone quiescing the app, and getting garbage. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
