Re: [zfs-discuss] separate home "partition"?
I want to create a separate home, shared, read/write zfs partition on a tri-boot OpenSolaris, Ubuntu, and CentOS system. I have successfully created and exported the zpools that I would like to use, in Ubuntu using zfs-fuse. However, I boot into OpenSolaris, and I type zpool import with no options. The only pool I see to import is on the primary partition, and I haven't been able to see or import the pool that is on the extended partition. I have tried importing using the name, and ID. In OpenSolaris /dev/dsk/c3d0 shows 15 slices, so I think the slices are there, but then I type format, select the disk, and the partition option, but it doesn't show (zfs) partitions from linux. In format, the fdisk option recognizes the (zfs) linux partitions. The partition that I was able to import is on the first partition, and is named c3d0p1, and is not a slice. Are there any ideas how I could import the other pool? -- 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 list improvements?
Can I ask why we need to use -c or -d at all? We already have -r to recursively list children, can't we add an optional depth parameter to that? You then have: zfs list : shows current level (essentially -r 0) zfs list -r : shows all levels (infinite recursion) zfs list -r 2 : shows 2 levels of children -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] I/O error when import
I have a 3 disk raidz configuration, one disk reports lots of error so I decided to replace it. At the same time I replaced the system disk and reinstalled the system(the same version). When I try to import mypool, I got an I/O error. What could I do to import it, replace the new disk(c2d0) with the original disk used in raidz and try again? bash-3.2# zpool import -f pool: mypool id: 4052179541023957932 state: FAULTED status: The pool was last accessed by another system. action: The pool cannot be imported due to damaged devices or data. The pool may be active on another system, but can be imported using the '-f' flag. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-EY config: mypool FAULTED corrupted data raidz1DEGRADED c1d1ONLINE c2d0UNAVAIL cannot open c2d1ONLINE bash-3.2# zpool import -f mypool cannot import 'mypool': I/O error bash-3.2# uname -a SunOS snv 5.11 snv_104 i86pc i386 i86pc -- 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?
OMG, Rich, that did help and solved all my confusion and now I can go to sleep... So now I have to consider Sun and EMC vs Intel in my home $ spending?! Forget it, Lenovo it is! at least my folks get a cut. Goodnight! best, z - Original Message - From: "Richard Elling" To: "Scott Laird" Cc: "JZ" ; "Orvar Korvar" ; ; "Peter Korn" Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 1:09 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > Scott Laird wrote: >> Today? Low-power SSDs are probably less reliable than low-power hard >> drives, although they're too new to really know for certain. Given >> the number of problems that vendors have had getting acceptable write >> speeds, I'd be really amazed if they've done any real work on >> long-term reliability yet. > > Eh? Flash has been around for well over 25 years and the > technology is well understood. Trivia: Sun has been shipping > flash memory for nearly its entire history. What hasn't happened > until relatively recently is that the vendors married high density > flash with a decent controller which expects and manages failures -- > like the disk drive guys did 20 years ago. It occurs to me that > you might be too young to remember that format(1m) was the > tool used to do media analysis and map bad sectors before those > smarts were moved onto the disk ? ;-) Why, we used to have to > regularly scan the media, reserve spare cylinders, and map out > bad sectors in the snow, walking uphill, in our bare feet because > shoes hadn't been invented yet... ;-) > >> Going forward, SSDs will almost certainly >> be more reliable, as long as you have something SMART-ish watching the >> number of worn-out SSD cells and recommending preemptive replacement >> of worn-out drives every few years. That should be a slow, >> predictable process, unlike most HD failures. >> > > I think you will find that failures can still be catastrophic. > But from a typical reliability analysis, the SSDs will be more > reliable than HDDs. The enterprise SSDs have DRAM > front-ends and plenty of spare cells to accommodate expected > enterprise use. FWIW, I expect an MTBF of 3-4M hours for > enterprise SSDs as compared to 1.6M hours for a top-tier > enterprise HDD. More worrying is the relative newness of the > firmware... but software reliability is a whole different ballgame. > > Rumor was that STEC won one of the Apple contracts > http://webfeet.sp360hosting.com/Lists/Research%20News/DispForm.aspx?ID=32 > STEC also supplies Sun and EMC. But the competition is > really heating up with Intel and Samsung having made several > recent announcements. We do live in interesting times :-) > -- richard > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
Scott Laird wrote: > Today? Low-power SSDs are probably less reliable than low-power hard > drives, although they're too new to really know for certain. Given > the number of problems that vendors have had getting acceptable write > speeds, I'd be really amazed if they've done any real work on > long-term reliability yet. Eh? Flash has been around for well over 25 years and the technology is well understood. Trivia: Sun has been shipping flash memory for nearly its entire history. What hasn't happened until relatively recently is that the vendors married high density flash with a decent controller which expects and manages failures -- like the disk drive guys did 20 years ago. It occurs to me that you might be too young to remember that format(1m) was the tool used to do media analysis and map bad sectors before those smarts were moved onto the disk ? ;-) Why, we used to have to regularly scan the media, reserve spare cylinders, and map out bad sectors in the snow, walking uphill, in our bare feet because shoes hadn't been invented yet... ;-) > Going forward, SSDs will almost certainly > be more reliable, as long as you have something SMART-ish watching the > number of worn-out SSD cells and recommending preemptive replacement > of worn-out drives every few years. That should be a slow, > predictable process, unlike most HD failures. > I think you will find that failures can still be catastrophic. But from a typical reliability analysis, the SSDs will be more reliable than HDDs. The enterprise SSDs have DRAM front-ends and plenty of spare cells to accommodate expected enterprise use. FWIW, I expect an MTBF of 3-4M hours for enterprise SSDs as compared to 1.6M hours for a top-tier enterprise HDD. More worrying is the relative newness of the firmware... but software reliability is a whole different ballgame. Rumor was that STEC won one of the Apple contracts http://webfeet.sp360hosting.com/Lists/Research%20News/DispForm.aspx?ID=32 STEC also supplies Sun and EMC. But the competition is really heating up with Intel and Samsung having made several recent announcements. We do live in interesting times :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Odd network performance with ZFS/CIFS
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:54 PM, gnomad wrote: > Ok, I'm going to reply to my own question here. After a few hours of > thinking, I believe I know what is going on. > > I am seeing the initial high network throughput as the 4GB of RAM in the > server fills up with data. In fact, in this case, I am bound by the speed > of the source drive, which tops out at about 40 MB/s -- just what I am > seeing as the copy starts. Eventually, the network speed settles down to > the write speed of the local pool. Copying files locally (on and off the > pool) shows that the sustained write speeds are, in fact, about 17-20 MB/s. > > So, this brings up a new question, are these speeds typical? For > reference, my pool is built from 6 1TB drives configured as RAIDZ2 driven by > an ICH9(R) configured in AHCI mode. I am aware that RAIDZ2 performance will > always be less than the speed of individual disks, but this is a little bit > more than I was expecting. Individually, these drives benchmark around > 60-70 MB/s, so I am looking at a fairly substantial penalty for the > reliability of RAIDZ2. > > I'll CC this message to the CIFS and Networking lists to prevent anyone > else from waiting time writing a reply, as the appropriate place for this > thread is now confirmed to be zfs-discuss. > > -g. > -- > That seems really, relaly low. What are your sustained read speeds? --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] hung when import zpool
It's a 2GB filessystem just for test. I wait about half an hour yesterday, but it import successful with only 20s when i re-tried today. Meanwhile, zfs didn't find any disk issue. (by the demo it should) On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Carsten Aulbert wrote: > Hi > > Qin Ming Hua wrote: > > bash-3.00# zpool import mypool > > ^C^C > > > > it hung when i try to re-import the zpool, has anyone see this before? > > > > How long did you wait? > > Once a zfs import took 1-2 hours to complete (it was seemingly stuck at > a ~30 GB filesystem which it needed to do some work on). > > Cheer > > Carsten > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > -- Best regards, Colin Qin ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] separate home "partition"?
You can edit /etc/user_attr file. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 9, 2009, at 11:13 AM, noz wrote: >> To do step no 4, you need to login as root, or create >> new user which >> home dir not at export. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> > > I tried to login as root at the login screen but it wouldn't let me, > some error about roles. Is there another way to login as root? > -- > 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] separate home "partition"?
> To do step no 4, you need to login as root, or create > new user which > home dir not at export. > > Sent from my iPhone > I tried to login as root at the login screen but it wouldn't let me, some error about roles. Is there another way to login as root? -- 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_space function
On Thu 08/01/09 20:36 , kavita kavita_kulka...@qualexsystems.com sent: > What exactly does zfs_space function do? > The comments suggest it allocates and frees space in a file. What does this > mean? And through what operation can i invoke this function? for eg. > whenever i edit/write to a file, zfs_write is called. So what operation can > be used to call this function? The code list is a better place to ask, or just check the source: http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_vnops.c#zfs_space -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] separate home "partition"?
To do step no 4, you need to login as root, or create new user which home dir not at export. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 9, 2009, at 10:10 AM, noz wrote: > Kyle wrote: >> So if preserving the home filesystem through >> re-installs are really >> important, putting the home filesystem in a separate >> pool may be in >> order. > > My problem similar to the original thread author, and this scenario > is exactly the one I had in mind. I figured out a workable solution > from the zfs admin guide, but I've only tested this in virtualbox. > I have no idea how well this would work if I actually had hundreds > of gigabytes of data. I also don't know if my solution is the > recommended way to do this, so please let me know if anyone has a > better method. > > Here's my solution: > (1) n...@holodeck:~# zpool create epool mirror c4t1d0 c4t2d0 c4t3d0 > > n...@holodeck:~# zfs list > NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > epool 69K 15.6G18K /epool > rpool 3.68G 11.9G72K /rpool > rpool/ROOT 2.81G 11.9G18K legacy > rpool/ROOT/opensolaris 2.81G 11.9G 2.68G / > rpool/dump 383M 11.9G 383M - > rpool/export 632K 11.9G19K /export > rpool/export/home612K 11.9G19K /export/home > rpool/export/home/noz594K 11.9G 594K /export/home/noz > rpool/swap 512M 12.4G 21.1M - > n...@holodeck:~# > > (2) n...@holodeck:~# zfs snapshot -r rpool/exp...@now > (3) n...@holodeck:~# zfs send -R rpool/exp...@now > /tmp/export_now > (4) n...@holodeck:~# zfs destroy -r -f rpool/export > (5) n...@holodeck:~# zfs recv -d epool < /tmp/export_now > > n...@holodeck:~# zfs list > NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > epool756K 15.6G18K /epool > epool/export 630K 15.6G19K /export > epool/export/home612K 15.6G19K /export/home > epool/export/home/noz592K 15.6G 592K /export/home/noz > rpool 3.68G 11.9G72K /rpool > rpool/ROOT 2.81G 11.9G18K legacy > rpool/ROOT/opensolaris 2.81G 11.9G 2.68G / > rpool/dump 383M 11.9G 383M - > rpool/swap 512M 12.4G 21.1M - > n...@holodeck:~# > > (6) n...@holodeck:~# zfs mount -a > > or > > (6) reboot > > The only part I'm uncomfortable with is when I have to destroy > rpool's export filesystem (step 4), because trying to destroy > without the -f switch results in a "filesystem is active" error. > -- > 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] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:29:10 -0800 Dave Brown wrote: > S, >Are you sure you have MPXIO turned on? I haven't dealt with > Solaris for a while (will again soon as I get some virtual servers > setup) but in the past you had to manually turn it on. I believe the > path was /kernel/drv/scsi_vhci.h (I may be missing some of the path) > and you changed the line that said mpxio_disabled = yes to > mpxio_disabled = no and rebooted. That used to be the case prior to Solaris 10 Update 1. Since S10u1 the supported way of turning on MPxIO is to run the command # /usr/sbin/stmsboot -e If you manually edit /kernel/drv/fp.conf or /kernel/drv/fp.conf to change the mpxio-disable property, you *must* also run # /usr/sbin/stmsboot -u Please see stmsboot(1m) for more details. James C. McPherson -- Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris Sun Microsystems http://blogs.sun.com/jmcp http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] separate home "partition"?
Kyle wrote: > So if preserving the home filesystem through > re-installs are really > important, putting the home filesystem in a separate > pool may be in > order. My problem similar to the original thread author, and this scenario is exactly the one I had in mind. I figured out a workable solution from the zfs admin guide, but I've only tested this in virtualbox. I have no idea how well this would work if I actually had hundreds of gigabytes of data. I also don't know if my solution is the recommended way to do this, so please let me know if anyone has a better method. Here's my solution: (1) n...@holodeck:~# zpool create epool mirror c4t1d0 c4t2d0 c4t3d0 n...@holodeck:~# zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT epool 69K 15.6G18K /epool rpool 3.68G 11.9G72K /rpool rpool/ROOT 2.81G 11.9G18K legacy rpool/ROOT/opensolaris 2.81G 11.9G 2.68G / rpool/dump 383M 11.9G 383M - rpool/export 632K 11.9G19K /export rpool/export/home612K 11.9G19K /export/home rpool/export/home/noz594K 11.9G 594K /export/home/noz rpool/swap 512M 12.4G 21.1M - n...@holodeck:~# (2) n...@holodeck:~# zfs snapshot -r rpool/exp...@now (3) n...@holodeck:~# zfs send -R rpool/exp...@now > /tmp/export_now (4) n...@holodeck:~# zfs destroy -r -f rpool/export (5) n...@holodeck:~# zfs recv -d epool < /tmp/export_now n...@holodeck:~# zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT epool756K 15.6G18K /epool epool/export 630K 15.6G19K /export epool/export/home612K 15.6G19K /export/home epool/export/home/noz592K 15.6G 592K /export/home/noz rpool 3.68G 11.9G72K /rpool rpool/ROOT 2.81G 11.9G18K legacy rpool/ROOT/opensolaris 2.81G 11.9G 2.68G / rpool/dump 383M 11.9G 383M - rpool/swap 512M 12.4G 21.1M - n...@holodeck:~# (6) n...@holodeck:~# zfs mount -a or (6) reboot The only part I'm uncomfortable with is when I have to destroy rpool's export filesystem (step 4), because trying to destroy without the -f switch results in a "filesystem is active" error. -- 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] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI
S, Are you sure you have MPXIO turned on? I haven't dealt with Solaris for a while (will again soon as I get some virtual servers setup) but in the past you had to manually turn it on. I believe the path was /kernel/drv/scsi_vhci.h (I may be missing some of the path) and you changed the line that said mpxio_disabled = yes to mpxio_disabled = no and rebooted. D JZ wrote: > Hi S, > sorry, as much as I am Super z, > this is beyond me. > maybe you can go to china town for a seafood dinner (they are on sale > worldwide now), and see if Sun folks would reply? > > best, > z > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Stephen Yum" > To: ; > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 7:27 PM > Subject: [zfs-discuss] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI > > > >> I'm trying to set up a iscsi connection (with MPXIO) between my Vista64 >> workstation and a ZFS storage machine running OpenSolaris 10 (forget the >> exact version). >> >> On the ZFS machines, I have two NICS. NIC #1 is 192.168.1.102, and NIC #2 >> is 192.168.2.102. The NICs are connected to two separate switches serving >> two separate IP spaces. >> >> On my Vista64 machine, I also have two NICs connected in a similar >> fashion, with NIC #1 assigned with 192.168.1.103, and NIC #2 with >> 192.168.2.103. >> >> Now, I fiddled around with the MS iSCSI intiator seemingly endlessly, and >> I can't get it to recognize my ZFS iSCSI volume as being MPIO enabled. It >> just shows up in the initiator panel simply as 'Disk'. Either I have not >> configured the ZFS end correctly to do MPXIO, or I'm not able to set the >> volume up as MPIO volume on the Vista64 end. >> >> I Googled endlessly to find some sort of a howto, but I came up virtually >> with nothing. Can any enlightened guru out there point me to a good howto >> or explain to me via this mailing list how to set it up correctly? >> Please??? I'm at my wit's end here. >> >> Thank you so much in advance >> >> S >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI
Dear S, that's a regional question beyond our global chinatown inniatives. in NYC, we have the Old, Original chinatown in the city; we have the newer [but I don't go much since that one is more Taiwan than PRC] in Flushing Queens; we have the Cantooness chinatowns in Brooklyn 8th Ave, and Ave U, which have really nice seafood, that I think would be suitable for your hongkong taste... And we have some private ones... yours, z - Original Message - From: "Stephen Yum" To: "JZ" ; ; Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 8:13 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI > No prob z. When seeing your name, it keeps reminding me of the famous > rapper. > Which Chinatown are they at? SF? > > S > > > > - Original Message > From: JZ > To: Stephen Yum ; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; > storage-disc...@opensolaris.org > Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2009 4:31:05 PM > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI > > Hi S, > sorry, as much as I am Super z, > this is beyond me. > maybe you can go to china town for a seafood dinner (they are on sale > worldwide now), and see if Sun folks would reply? > > best, > z > > > > - Original Message - From: "Stephen Yum" > To: ; > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 7:27 PM > Subject: [zfs-discuss] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI > > >> I'm trying to set up a iscsi connection (with MPXIO) between my Vista64 >> workstation and a ZFS storage machine running OpenSolaris 10 (forget the >> exact version). >> >> On the ZFS machines, I have two NICS. NIC #1 is 192.168.1.102, and NIC #2 >> is 192.168.2.102. The NICs are connected to two separate switches serving >> two separate IP spaces. >> >> On my Vista64 machine, I also have two NICs connected in a similar >> fashion, with NIC #1 assigned with 192.168.1.103, and NIC #2 with >> 192.168.2.103. >> >> Now, I fiddled around with the MS iSCSI intiator seemingly endlessly, and >> I can't get it to recognize my ZFS iSCSI volume as being MPIO enabled. It >> just shows up in the initiator panel simply as 'Disk'. Either I have not >> configured the ZFS end correctly to do MPXIO, or I'm not able to set the >> volume up as MPIO volume on the Vista64 end. >> >> I Googled endlessly to find some sort of a howto, but I came up virtually >> with nothing. Can any enlightened guru out there point me to a good howto >> or explain to me via this mailing list how to set it up correctly? >> Please??? I'm at my wit's end here. >> >> Thank you so much in advance >> >> S >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI
No prob z. When seeing your name, it keeps reminding me of the famous rapper. Which Chinatown are they at? SF? S - Original Message From: JZ To: Stephen Yum ; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; storage-disc...@opensolaris.org Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2009 4:31:05 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI Hi S, sorry, as much as I am Super z, this is beyond me. maybe you can go to china town for a seafood dinner (they are on sale worldwide now), and see if Sun folks would reply? best, z - Original Message - From: "Stephen Yum" To: ; Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 7:27 PM Subject: [zfs-discuss] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI > I'm trying to set up a iscsi connection (with MPXIO) between my Vista64 > workstation and a ZFS storage machine running OpenSolaris 10 (forget the > exact version). > > On the ZFS machines, I have two NICS. NIC #1 is 192.168.1.102, and NIC #2 is > 192.168.2.102. The NICs are connected to two separate switches serving two > separate IP spaces. > > On my Vista64 machine, I also have two NICs connected in a similar fashion, > with NIC #1 assigned with 192.168.1.103, and NIC #2 with 192.168.2.103. > > Now, I fiddled around with the MS iSCSI intiator seemingly endlessly, and I > can't get it to recognize my ZFS iSCSI volume as being MPIO enabled. It just > shows up in the initiator panel simply as 'Disk'. Either I have not > configured the ZFS end correctly to do MPXIO, or I'm not able to set the > volume up as MPIO volume on the Vista64 end. > > I Googled endlessly to find some sort of a howto, but I came up virtually > with nothing. Can any enlightened guru out there point me to a good howto or > explain to me via this mailing list how to set it up correctly? Please??? I'm > at my wit's end here. > > Thank you so much in advance > > S > > > > > > ___ > 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] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI
Hi S, sorry, as much as I am Super z, this is beyond me. maybe you can go to china town for a seafood dinner (they are on sale worldwide now), and see if Sun folks would reply? best, z - Original Message - From: "Stephen Yum" To: ; Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 7:27 PM Subject: [zfs-discuss] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI > I'm trying to set up a iscsi connection (with MPXIO) between my Vista64 > workstation and a ZFS storage machine running OpenSolaris 10 (forget the > exact version). > > On the ZFS machines, I have two NICS. NIC #1 is 192.168.1.102, and NIC #2 > is 192.168.2.102. The NICs are connected to two separate switches serving > two separate IP spaces. > > On my Vista64 machine, I also have two NICs connected in a similar > fashion, with NIC #1 assigned with 192.168.1.103, and NIC #2 with > 192.168.2.103. > > Now, I fiddled around with the MS iSCSI intiator seemingly endlessly, and > I can't get it to recognize my ZFS iSCSI volume as being MPIO enabled. It > just shows up in the initiator panel simply as 'Disk'. Either I have not > configured the ZFS end correctly to do MPXIO, or I'm not able to set the > volume up as MPIO volume on the Vista64 end. > > I Googled endlessly to find some sort of a howto, but I came up virtually > with nothing. Can any enlightened guru out there point me to a good howto > or explain to me via this mailing list how to set it up correctly? > Please??? I'm at my wit's end here. > > Thank you so much in advance > > S > > > > > > ___ > 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] Desperate question about MPXIO with ZFS-iSCSI
I'm trying to set up a iscsi connection (with MPXIO) between my Vista64 workstation and a ZFS storage machine running OpenSolaris 10 (forget the exact version). On the ZFS machines, I have two NICS. NIC #1 is 192.168.1.102, and NIC #2 is 192.168.2.102. The NICs are connected to two separate switches serving two separate IP spaces. On my Vista64 machine, I also have two NICs connected in a similar fashion, with NIC #1 assigned with 192.168.1.103, and NIC #2 with 192.168.2.103. Now, I fiddled around with the MS iSCSI intiator seemingly endlessly, and I can't get it to recognize my ZFS iSCSI volume as being MPIO enabled. It just shows up in the initiator panel simply as 'Disk'. Either I have not configured the ZFS end correctly to do MPXIO, or I'm not able to set the volume up as MPIO volume on the Vista64 end. I Googled endlessly to find some sort of a howto, but I came up virtually with nothing. Can any enlightened guru out there point me to a good howto or explain to me via this mailing list how to set it up correctly? Please??? I'm at my wit's end here. Thank you so much in advance S ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Odd network performance with ZFS/CIFS
test -- 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] Odd network performance with ZFS/CIFS
Ok, I'm going to reply to my own question here. After a few hours of thinking, I believe I know what is going on. I am seeing the initial high network throughput as the 4GB of RAM in the server fills up with data. In fact, in this case, I am bound by the speed of the source drive, which tops out at about 40 MB/s -- just what I am seeing as the copy starts. Eventually, the network speed settles down to the write speed of the local pool. Copying files locally (on and off the pool) shows that the sustained write speeds are, in fact, about 17-20 MB/s. So, this brings up a new question, are these speeds typical? For reference, my pool is built from 6 1TB drives configured as RAIDZ2 driven by an ICH9(R) configured in AHCI mode. I am aware that RAIDZ2 performance will always be less than the speed of individual disks, but this is a little bit more than I was expecting. Individually, these drives benchmark around 60-70 MB/s, so I am looking at a fairly substantial penalty for the reliability of RAIDZ2. I'll CC this message to the CIFS and Networking lists to prevent anyone else from waiting time writing a reply, as the appropriate place for this thread is now confirmed to be zfs-discuss. -g. -- 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?
OMG! what a critical factor I just didn't think about!!! stupid me! Moog, please, which laptops are supporting ZFS today? I will only buy within those. z, at home, feeling better, but still a bit confused - Original Message - From: "The Moog" To: "JZ" ; ; "Scott Laird" Cc: "Orvar Korvar" ; ; "Peter Korn" Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > Are you planning to run Solaris on your laptop? > > Sent from my BlackBerry Bold® > http://www.blackberrybold.com > > -Original Message- > From: "JZ" > > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:27:52 > To: Scott Laird > Cc: Orvar Korvar; > ; Peter Korn > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > > > Thanks much Scott, > I still don't know what you are talking about -- my $3000 to $800 laptops > all never needed to swap any drive. > > But yeah, I got hit on all of them when I was in china, by the china web > virus that no U.S. software could do anything [then a china open source > thing did the job] > > So, without the swapping HD concern, what should I do??? > > z at home still confused > > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Laird" > To: "JZ" > Cc: "Toby Thain" ; "Brandon High" > ; ; "Peter Korn" > ; "Orvar Korvar" > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:20 PM > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > > >> You can't trust any hard drive. That's what backups are for :-). >> >> Laptop hard drives aren't much worse than desktop drives, and 2.5" >> SATA drives are cheap. As long as they're easy to swap, then a drive >> failure isn't the end of the world. Order a new drive ($100 or so), >> swap them, and restore from backup. >> >> I haven't dealt with PC laptops in years, so I can't really compare >> models. >> >> >> Scott >> >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:40 PM, JZ wrote: >>> Thanks Scott, >>> I was really itchy to order one, now I just want to save that open $ for >>> Remy+++. >>> >>> Then, next question, can I trust any HD for my home laptop? should I go >>> get >>> a Sony VAIO or a cheap China-made thing would do? >>> big price delta... >>> >>> z at home >>> >>> - Original Message - From: "Scott Laird" >>> To: "JZ" >>> Cc: "Toby Thain" ; "Brandon High" >>> ; ; "Peter Korn" >>> ; "Orvar Korvar" >>> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:36 PM >>> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? >>> >>> Today? Low-power SSDs are probably less reliable than low-power hard drives, although they're too new to really know for certain. Given the number of problems that vendors have had getting acceptable write speeds, I'd be really amazed if they've done any real work on long-term reliability yet. Going forward, SSDs will almost certainly be more reliable, as long as you have something SMART-ish watching the number of worn-out SSD cells and recommending preemptive replacement of worn-out drives every few years. That should be a slow, predictable process, unlike most HD failures. Scott On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, JZ wrote: > > I was think about Apple's new SSD drive option on laptops... > > is that safer than Apple's HD or less safe? [maybe Orvar can help me > on > this] > > the price is a bit hefty for me to just order for experiment... > Thanks! > z at home > > > - Original Message - From: "Toby Thain" > > To: "JZ" > Cc: "Scott Laird" ; "Brandon High" > ; > ; "Peter Korn" > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:25 PM > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > > >> >> On 7-Jan-09, at 9:43 PM, JZ wrote: >> >>> ok, Scott, that sounded sincere. I am not going to do the pic thing >>> on >>> you. >>> >>> But do I have to spell this out to you -- somethings are invented >>> not >>> for >>> home use? >>> >>> Cindy, would you want to do ZFS at home, >> >> Why would you disrespect your personal data? ZFS is perfect for home >> use, >> for reasons that have been discussed on this list and elsewhere. >> >> Apple also recognises this, which is why ZFS is in OS X 10.5 and will >> presumably become the default boot filesystem. >> >> Sorry to wander a little offtopic, but IMHO - Apple needs to >> acknowledge, >> and tell their customers, that hard drives are unreliable >> consumables. >> >> I am desperately looking forward to the day when they recognise the >> need >> to ship all their systems with: >> 1) mirrored storage out of the box; >> 2) easy user-swappable drives; >> 3) foolproof fault notification and rectification. >> >> There is no reason why an Apple customer should not have this level >> of >> protection for her photo and video library, Great American Novel, or >> whatever. Time Machine is a go
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
Are you planning to run Solaris on your laptop? Sent from my BlackBerry Bold® http://www.blackberrybold.com -Original Message- From: "JZ" Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:27:52 To: Scott Laird Cc: Orvar Korvar; ; Peter Korn Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? Thanks much Scott, I still don't know what you are talking about -- my $3000 to $800 laptops all never needed to swap any drive. But yeah, I got hit on all of them when I was in china, by the china web virus that no U.S. software could do anything [then a china open source thing did the job] So, without the swapping HD concern, what should I do??? z at home still confused - Original Message - From: "Scott Laird" To: "JZ" Cc: "Toby Thain" ; "Brandon High" ; ; "Peter Korn" ; "Orvar Korvar" Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > You can't trust any hard drive. That's what backups are for :-). > > Laptop hard drives aren't much worse than desktop drives, and 2.5" > SATA drives are cheap. As long as they're easy to swap, then a drive > failure isn't the end of the world. Order a new drive ($100 or so), > swap them, and restore from backup. > > I haven't dealt with PC laptops in years, so I can't really compare > models. > > > Scott > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:40 PM, JZ wrote: >> Thanks Scott, >> I was really itchy to order one, now I just want to save that open $ for >> Remy+++. >> >> Then, next question, can I trust any HD for my home laptop? should I go >> get >> a Sony VAIO or a cheap China-made thing would do? >> big price delta... >> >> z at home >> >> - Original Message - From: "Scott Laird" >> To: "JZ" >> Cc: "Toby Thain" ; "Brandon High" >> ; ; "Peter Korn" >> ; "Orvar Korvar" >> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:36 PM >> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? >> >> >>> Today? Low-power SSDs are probably less reliable than low-power hard >>> drives, although they're too new to really know for certain. Given >>> the number of problems that vendors have had getting acceptable write >>> speeds, I'd be really amazed if they've done any real work on >>> long-term reliability yet. Going forward, SSDs will almost certainly >>> be more reliable, as long as you have something SMART-ish watching the >>> number of worn-out SSD cells and recommending preemptive replacement >>> of worn-out drives every few years. That should be a slow, >>> predictable process, unlike most HD failures. >>> >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, JZ wrote: I was think about Apple's new SSD drive option on laptops... is that safer than Apple's HD or less safe? [maybe Orvar can help me on this] the price is a bit hefty for me to just order for experiment... Thanks! z at home - Original Message - From: "Toby Thain" To: "JZ" Cc: "Scott Laird" ; "Brandon High" ; ; "Peter Korn" Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:25 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > > On 7-Jan-09, at 9:43 PM, JZ wrote: > >> ok, Scott, that sounded sincere. I am not going to do the pic thing >> on >> you. >> >> But do I have to spell this out to you -- somethings are invented >> not >> for >> home use? >> >> Cindy, would you want to do ZFS at home, > > Why would you disrespect your personal data? ZFS is perfect for home > use, > for reasons that have been discussed on this list and elsewhere. > > Apple also recognises this, which is why ZFS is in OS X 10.5 and will > presumably become the default boot filesystem. > > Sorry to wander a little offtopic, but IMHO - Apple needs to > acknowledge, > and tell their customers, that hard drives are unreliable > consumables. > > I am desperately looking forward to the day when they recognise the > need > to ship all their systems with: > 1) mirrored storage out of the box; > 2) easy user-swappable drives; > 3) foolproof fault notification and rectification. > > There is no reason why an Apple customer should not have this level > of > protection for her photo and video library, Great American Novel, or > whatever. Time Machine is a good first step (though it doesn't often > work > smoothly for me with a LaCie external FW drive). > > These are the neglected pieces, IMHO, of their touted Digital > Lifestyle. > > --Toby > > >> or just having some wine and music? >> >> Can we focus on commercial usage? >> please! >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Scott Laird" >> To: "Brandon High" >> Cc: ; "Peter Korn" >> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:28 PM >> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
Thanks much Scott, I still don't know what you are talking about -- my $3000 to $800 laptops all never needed to swap any drive. But yeah, I got hit on all of them when I was in china, by the china web virus that no U.S. software could do anything [then a china open source thing did the job] So, without the swapping HD concern, what should I do??? z at home still confused - Original Message - From: "Scott Laird" To: "JZ" Cc: "Toby Thain" ; "Brandon High" ; ; "Peter Korn" ; "Orvar Korvar" Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > You can't trust any hard drive. That's what backups are for :-). > > Laptop hard drives aren't much worse than desktop drives, and 2.5" > SATA drives are cheap. As long as they're easy to swap, then a drive > failure isn't the end of the world. Order a new drive ($100 or so), > swap them, and restore from backup. > > I haven't dealt with PC laptops in years, so I can't really compare > models. > > > Scott > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:40 PM, JZ wrote: >> Thanks Scott, >> I was really itchy to order one, now I just want to save that open $ for >> Remy+++. >> >> Then, next question, can I trust any HD for my home laptop? should I go >> get >> a Sony VAIO or a cheap China-made thing would do? >> big price delta... >> >> z at home >> >> - Original Message - From: "Scott Laird" >> To: "JZ" >> Cc: "Toby Thain" ; "Brandon High" >> ; ; "Peter Korn" >> ; "Orvar Korvar" >> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:36 PM >> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? >> >> >>> Today? Low-power SSDs are probably less reliable than low-power hard >>> drives, although they're too new to really know for certain. Given >>> the number of problems that vendors have had getting acceptable write >>> speeds, I'd be really amazed if they've done any real work on >>> long-term reliability yet. Going forward, SSDs will almost certainly >>> be more reliable, as long as you have something SMART-ish watching the >>> number of worn-out SSD cells and recommending preemptive replacement >>> of worn-out drives every few years. That should be a slow, >>> predictable process, unlike most HD failures. >>> >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, JZ wrote: I was think about Apple's new SSD drive option on laptops... is that safer than Apple's HD or less safe? [maybe Orvar can help me on this] the price is a bit hefty for me to just order for experiment... Thanks! z at home - Original Message - From: "Toby Thain" To: "JZ" Cc: "Scott Laird" ; "Brandon High" ; ; "Peter Korn" Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:25 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > > On 7-Jan-09, at 9:43 PM, JZ wrote: > >> ok, Scott, that sounded sincere. I am not going to do the pic thing >> on >> you. >> >> But do I have to spell this out to you -- somethings are invented >> not >> for >> home use? >> >> Cindy, would you want to do ZFS at home, > > Why would you disrespect your personal data? ZFS is perfect for home > use, > for reasons that have been discussed on this list and elsewhere. > > Apple also recognises this, which is why ZFS is in OS X 10.5 and will > presumably become the default boot filesystem. > > Sorry to wander a little offtopic, but IMHO - Apple needs to > acknowledge, > and tell their customers, that hard drives are unreliable > consumables. > > I am desperately looking forward to the day when they recognise the > need > to ship all their systems with: > 1) mirrored storage out of the box; > 2) easy user-swappable drives; > 3) foolproof fault notification and rectification. > > There is no reason why an Apple customer should not have this level > of > protection for her photo and video library, Great American Novel, or > whatever. Time Machine is a good first step (though it doesn't often > work > smoothly for me with a LaCie external FW drive). > > These are the neglected pieces, IMHO, of their touted Digital > Lifestyle. > > --Toby > > >> or just having some wine and music? >> >> Can we focus on commercial usage? >> please! >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Scott Laird" >> To: "Brandon High" >> Cc: ; "Peter Korn" >> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:28 PM >> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? >> >> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Brandon High >>> wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Joel Buckley wrote: > > How much is your time worth? Quite a bit. > Consider the engineering eff
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
You can't trust any hard drive. That's what backups are for :-). Laptop hard drives aren't much worse than desktop drives, and 2.5" SATA drives are cheap. As long as they're easy to swap, then a drive failure isn't the end of the world. Order a new drive ($100 or so), swap them, and restore from backup. I haven't dealt with PC laptops in years, so I can't really compare models. Scott On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:40 PM, JZ wrote: > Thanks Scott, > I was really itchy to order one, now I just want to save that open $ for > Remy+++. > > Then, next question, can I trust any HD for my home laptop? should I go get > a Sony VAIO or a cheap China-made thing would do? > big price delta... > > z at home > > - Original Message - From: "Scott Laird" > To: "JZ" > Cc: "Toby Thain" ; "Brandon High" > ; ; "Peter Korn" > ; "Orvar Korvar" > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:36 PM > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > > >> Today? Low-power SSDs are probably less reliable than low-power hard >> drives, although they're too new to really know for certain. Given >> the number of problems that vendors have had getting acceptable write >> speeds, I'd be really amazed if they've done any real work on >> long-term reliability yet. Going forward, SSDs will almost certainly >> be more reliable, as long as you have something SMART-ish watching the >> number of worn-out SSD cells and recommending preemptive replacement >> of worn-out drives every few years. That should be a slow, >> predictable process, unlike most HD failures. >> >> >> Scott >> >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, JZ wrote: >>> >>> I was think about Apple's new SSD drive option on laptops... >>> >>> is that safer than Apple's HD or less safe? [maybe Orvar can help me on >>> this] >>> >>> the price is a bit hefty for me to just order for experiment... >>> Thanks! >>> z at home >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - From: "Toby Thain" >>> >>> To: "JZ" >>> Cc: "Scott Laird" ; "Brandon High" ; >>> ; "Peter Korn" >>> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:25 PM >>> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? >>> >>> On 7-Jan-09, at 9:43 PM, JZ wrote: > ok, Scott, that sounded sincere. I am not going to do the pic thing on > you. > > But do I have to spell this out to you -- somethings are invented not > for > home use? > > Cindy, would you want to do ZFS at home, Why would you disrespect your personal data? ZFS is perfect for home use, for reasons that have been discussed on this list and elsewhere. Apple also recognises this, which is why ZFS is in OS X 10.5 and will presumably become the default boot filesystem. Sorry to wander a little offtopic, but IMHO - Apple needs to acknowledge, and tell their customers, that hard drives are unreliable consumables. I am desperately looking forward to the day when they recognise the need to ship all their systems with: 1) mirrored storage out of the box; 2) easy user-swappable drives; 3) foolproof fault notification and rectification. There is no reason why an Apple customer should not have this level of protection for her photo and video library, Great American Novel, or whatever. Time Machine is a good first step (though it doesn't often work smoothly for me with a LaCie external FW drive). These are the neglected pieces, IMHO, of their touted Digital Lifestyle. --Toby > or just having some wine and music? > > Can we focus on commercial usage? > please! > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Laird" > To: "Brandon High" > Cc: ; "Peter Korn" > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:28 PM > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Brandon High wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Joel Buckley >>> wrote: How much is your time worth? >>> >>> Quite a bit. >>> Consider the engineering effort going into every Sun Server. Any system from Sun is more than sufficient for a home server. You want more disks, then buy one with more slots. Done. >>> >>> A few years ago, I put together the NAS box currently in use at home >>> for $300 for 1TB of space. Mind you, I recycled the RAM from another >>> box and the four 250GB disks were free. I think 250 drives were >>> around >>> $200 at the time, so let's say the system price was $1200. >>> >>> I don't think there's a Sun server that takes 4+ drives anywhere near >>> $1200. The X4200 uses 2.5" drives, but costs $4255. Actually adding >>> more drives ups the cost further. That means the afternoon I spent >>> setting my server up was worth $3000. I should tell my boss that. >>> >>> A mo
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
Scott?? I am really at a major cross-point in my decision making process -- until today, all my home stuff are Sony, from TV, projector, stereo bricks, all the way to USB SSD sticks. [besides speakers I use Bose] but this laptop thing is really bothering my religious love for Sony. should I or should I not... OMG! ???! z, at home don't know how to spend $ - Original Message - From: "JZ" To: "Scott Laird" Cc: "Orvar Korvar" ; ; "Peter Korn" Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:40 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > Thanks Scott, > I was really itchy to order one, now I just want to save that open $ for > Remy+++. > > Then, next question, can I trust any HD for my home laptop? should I go > get > a Sony VAIO or a cheap China-made thing would do? > big price delta... > > z at home > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Laird" > To: "JZ" > Cc: "Toby Thain" ; "Brandon High" > ; ; "Peter Korn" > ; "Orvar Korvar" > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:36 PM > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > > >> Today? Low-power SSDs are probably less reliable than low-power hard >> drives, although they're too new to really know for certain. Given >> the number of problems that vendors have had getting acceptable write >> speeds, I'd be really amazed if they've done any real work on >> long-term reliability yet. Going forward, SSDs will almost certainly >> be more reliable, as long as you have something SMART-ish watching the >> number of worn-out SSD cells and recommending preemptive replacement >> of worn-out drives every few years. That should be a slow, >> predictable process, unlike most HD failures. >> >> >> Scott >> >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, JZ wrote: >>> I was think about Apple's new SSD drive option on laptops... >>> >>> is that safer than Apple's HD or less safe? [maybe Orvar can help me on >>> this] >>> >>> the price is a bit hefty for me to just order for experiment... >>> Thanks! >>> z at home >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - From: "Toby Thain" >>> >>> To: "JZ" >>> Cc: "Scott Laird" ; "Brandon High" >>> ; >>> ; "Peter Korn" >>> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:25 PM >>> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? >>> >>> On 7-Jan-09, at 9:43 PM, JZ wrote: > ok, Scott, that sounded sincere. I am not going to do the pic thing > on > you. > > But do I have to spell this out to you -- somethings are invented not > for > home use? > > Cindy, would you want to do ZFS at home, Why would you disrespect your personal data? ZFS is perfect for home use, for reasons that have been discussed on this list and elsewhere. Apple also recognises this, which is why ZFS is in OS X 10.5 and will presumably become the default boot filesystem. Sorry to wander a little offtopic, but IMHO - Apple needs to acknowledge, and tell their customers, that hard drives are unreliable consumables. I am desperately looking forward to the day when they recognise the need to ship all their systems with: 1) mirrored storage out of the box; 2) easy user-swappable drives; 3) foolproof fault notification and rectification. There is no reason why an Apple customer should not have this level of protection for her photo and video library, Great American Novel, or whatever. Time Machine is a good first step (though it doesn't often work smoothly for me with a LaCie external FW drive). These are the neglected pieces, IMHO, of their touted Digital Lifestyle. --Toby > or just having some wine and music? > > Can we focus on commercial usage? > please! > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Laird" > To: "Brandon High" > Cc: ; "Peter Korn" > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:28 PM > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Brandon High >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Joel Buckley >>> wrote: How much is your time worth? >>> >>> Quite a bit. >>> Consider the engineering effort going into every Sun Server. Any system from Sun is more than sufficient for a home server. You want more disks, then buy one with more slots. Done. >>> >>> A few years ago, I put together the NAS box currently in use at home >>> for $300 for 1TB of space. Mind you, I recycled the RAM from another >>> box and the four 250GB disks were free. I think 250 drives were >>> around >>> $200 at the time, so let's say the system price was $1200. >>> >>> I don't think there's a Sun server that takes 4+ drives anywhere >>> near >>> $1200. The X4200 uses 2.5" drives, but costs $4255. Actually adding >
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
Thanks Scott, I was really itchy to order one, now I just want to save that open $ for Remy+++. Then, next question, can I trust any HD for my home laptop? should I go get a Sony VAIO or a cheap China-made thing would do? big price delta... z at home - Original Message - From: "Scott Laird" To: "JZ" Cc: "Toby Thain" ; "Brandon High" ; ; "Peter Korn" ; "Orvar Korvar" Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > Today? Low-power SSDs are probably less reliable than low-power hard > drives, although they're too new to really know for certain. Given > the number of problems that vendors have had getting acceptable write > speeds, I'd be really amazed if they've done any real work on > long-term reliability yet. Going forward, SSDs will almost certainly > be more reliable, as long as you have something SMART-ish watching the > number of worn-out SSD cells and recommending preemptive replacement > of worn-out drives every few years. That should be a slow, > predictable process, unlike most HD failures. > > > Scott > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, JZ wrote: >> I was think about Apple's new SSD drive option on laptops... >> >> is that safer than Apple's HD or less safe? [maybe Orvar can help me on >> this] >> >> the price is a bit hefty for me to just order for experiment... >> Thanks! >> z at home >> >> >> - Original Message - From: "Toby Thain" >> >> To: "JZ" >> Cc: "Scott Laird" ; "Brandon High" ; >> ; "Peter Korn" >> Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:25 PM >> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? >> >> >>> >>> On 7-Jan-09, at 9:43 PM, JZ wrote: >>> ok, Scott, that sounded sincere. I am not going to do the pic thing on you. But do I have to spell this out to you -- somethings are invented not for home use? Cindy, would you want to do ZFS at home, >>> >>> Why would you disrespect your personal data? ZFS is perfect for home >>> use, >>> for reasons that have been discussed on this list and elsewhere. >>> >>> Apple also recognises this, which is why ZFS is in OS X 10.5 and will >>> presumably become the default boot filesystem. >>> >>> Sorry to wander a little offtopic, but IMHO - Apple needs to >>> acknowledge, >>> and tell their customers, that hard drives are unreliable consumables. >>> >>> I am desperately looking forward to the day when they recognise the >>> need >>> to ship all their systems with: >>> 1) mirrored storage out of the box; >>> 2) easy user-swappable drives; >>> 3) foolproof fault notification and rectification. >>> >>> There is no reason why an Apple customer should not have this level of >>> protection for her photo and video library, Great American Novel, or >>> whatever. Time Machine is a good first step (though it doesn't often >>> work >>> smoothly for me with a LaCie external FW drive). >>> >>> These are the neglected pieces, IMHO, of their touted Digital Lifestyle. >>> >>> --Toby >>> >>> or just having some wine and music? Can we focus on commercial usage? please! - Original Message - From: "Scott Laird" To: "Brandon High" Cc: ; "Peter Korn" Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Brandon High > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Joel Buckley >> wrote: >>> >>> How much is your time worth? >> >> Quite a bit. >> >>> Consider the engineering effort going into every Sun Server. >>> Any system from Sun is more than sufficient for a home server. >>> You want more disks, then buy one with more slots. Done. >> >> A few years ago, I put together the NAS box currently in use at home >> for $300 for 1TB of space. Mind you, I recycled the RAM from another >> box and the four 250GB disks were free. I think 250 drives were >> around >> $200 at the time, so let's say the system price was $1200. >> >> I don't think there's a Sun server that takes 4+ drives anywhere >> near >> $1200. The X4200 uses 2.5" drives, but costs $4255. Actually adding >> more drives ups the cost further. That means the afternoon I spent >> setting my server up was worth $3000. I should tell my boss that. >> >> A more reasonable comparison would be the Ultra 24. A system with >> 4x250 drives is $1650. I could build a 4 TB system today for *less* >> than my 1TB system of 2 years ago, so let's use 3x750 + 1x250 >> drives. >> (That's all the store will let me) and the price jumps to $2641. >> >> Assume that I buy the cheapest x64 system (the X2100 M2 at $1228) >> and >> add a drive tray because I want 4 drives ... well I can't. The >> cheapest drive tray is $7465. >> >> I have trouble justifying Sun hardware for many bus
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
Today? Low-power SSDs are probably less reliable than low-power hard drives, although they're too new to really know for certain. Given the number of problems that vendors have had getting acceptable write speeds, I'd be really amazed if they've done any real work on long-term reliability yet. Going forward, SSDs will almost certainly be more reliable, as long as you have something SMART-ish watching the number of worn-out SSD cells and recommending preemptive replacement of worn-out drives every few years. That should be a slow, predictable process, unlike most HD failures. Scott On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:30 PM, JZ wrote: > I was think about Apple's new SSD drive option on laptops... > > is that safer than Apple's HD or less safe? [maybe Orvar can help me on > this] > > the price is a bit hefty for me to just order for experiment... > Thanks! > z at home > > > - Original Message - From: "Toby Thain" > To: "JZ" > Cc: "Scott Laird" ; "Brandon High" ; > ; "Peter Korn" > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:25 PM > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > > >> >> On 7-Jan-09, at 9:43 PM, JZ wrote: >> >>> ok, Scott, that sounded sincere. I am not going to do the pic thing on >>> you. >>> >>> But do I have to spell this out to you -- somethings are invented not >>> for >>> home use? >>> >>> Cindy, would you want to do ZFS at home, >> >> Why would you disrespect your personal data? ZFS is perfect for home use, >> for reasons that have been discussed on this list and elsewhere. >> >> Apple also recognises this, which is why ZFS is in OS X 10.5 and will >> presumably become the default boot filesystem. >> >> Sorry to wander a little offtopic, but IMHO - Apple needs to acknowledge, >> and tell their customers, that hard drives are unreliable consumables. >> >> I am desperately looking forward to the day when they recognise the need >> to ship all their systems with: >> 1) mirrored storage out of the box; >> 2) easy user-swappable drives; >> 3) foolproof fault notification and rectification. >> >> There is no reason why an Apple customer should not have this level of >> protection for her photo and video library, Great American Novel, or >> whatever. Time Machine is a good first step (though it doesn't often work >> smoothly for me with a LaCie external FW drive). >> >> These are the neglected pieces, IMHO, of their touted Digital Lifestyle. >> >> --Toby >> >> >>> or just having some wine and music? >>> >>> Can we focus on commercial usage? >>> please! >>> >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Scott Laird" >>> To: "Brandon High" >>> Cc: ; "Peter Korn" >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:28 PM >>> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Brandon High wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Joel Buckley > wrote: >> >> How much is your time worth? > > Quite a bit. > >> Consider the engineering effort going into every Sun Server. >> Any system from Sun is more than sufficient for a home server. >> You want more disks, then buy one with more slots. Done. > > A few years ago, I put together the NAS box currently in use at home > for $300 for 1TB of space. Mind you, I recycled the RAM from another > box and the four 250GB disks were free. I think 250 drives were around > $200 at the time, so let's say the system price was $1200. > > I don't think there's a Sun server that takes 4+ drives anywhere near > $1200. The X4200 uses 2.5" drives, but costs $4255. Actually adding > more drives ups the cost further. That means the afternoon I spent > setting my server up was worth $3000. I should tell my boss that. > > A more reasonable comparison would be the Ultra 24. A system with > 4x250 drives is $1650. I could build a 4 TB system today for *less* > than my 1TB system of 2 years ago, so let's use 3x750 + 1x250 drives. > (That's all the store will let me) and the price jumps to $2641. > > Assume that I buy the cheapest x64 system (the X2100 M2 at $1228) and > add a drive tray because I want 4 drives ... well I can't. The > cheapest drive tray is $7465. > > I have trouble justifying Sun hardware for many business applications > that don't require SPARC, let alone for the home. For custom systems > that most tinkerers would want at home, a shop like Silicon Mechanics > (http://www.siliconmechanics.com/) (or even Dell or HP) is almost > always a better deal on hardware. I agree completely. About a year ago I spent around $800 (w/o drives) on a NAS box for home. I used a 4x PCI-X single-Xeon Supermicro MB, a giant case, and a single 8-port Supermicro SATA card. Then I dropped a pair of 80 GB boot drives and 9x 500 GB drives into it. With raidz2 plus a spare, that gives me around 2.7T of usable space. When I fil
Re: [zfs-discuss] [storage-discuss] ZFS iscsi snapshot - VSScompatible?
Okay, so is there an implementation of HyperV or VSS or whatever on the Solaris+ZFS environment? Also, is there something like this if I were to access ZFS-based storage from a Linux client, for example? Since most of my clients will be running some version of Windows while accessing a ZFS backend array through a Windows 2003 or Windows 2008 server, just a solution that can mimic HyperV or VSS would be great. Thanks so much in advance S - Original Message From: JZ To: Jason J. W. Williams ; Mr Stephen Yum Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; Tim Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2009 4:45:05 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] [storage-discuss] ZFS iscsi snapshot - VSScompatible? OMG, no safety feature?! Sorry, even on ZFS turf, if you use HyperV, and the HyperV VSS Writer, it could be a lot safer -- if you don't know how to do a block-level Super thing... best, zStorageAnalyst - Original Message - From: "Jason J. W. Williams" To: "Mr Stephen Yum" Cc: ; Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] [storage-discuss] ZFS iscsi snapshot - VSScompatible? > Since iSCSI is block-level, I don't think the iSCSI intelligence at > the file level you're asking for is feasible. VSS is used at the > file-system level on either NTFS partitions or over CIFS. > > -J > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mr Stephen Yum wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> If I want to make a snapshot of an iscsi volume while there's a transfer >> going on, is there a way to detect this and either 1) not include the file >> being transferred, or 2) wait until the transfer is finished before making >> the snapshot? >> >> If I understand correctly, this is what Microsoft's VSS is supposed to do. >> Am I right? >> >> Right now, when there is a transfer going on while making the snapshot, I >> always end up with a corrupt file (understandably so, since the file >> transfer is unfinished). >> >> S >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> storage-discuss mailing list >> storage-disc...@opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-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] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
I was think about Apple's new SSD drive option on laptops... is that safer than Apple's HD or less safe? [maybe Orvar can help me on this] the price is a bit hefty for me to just order for experiment... Thanks! z at home - Original Message - From: "Toby Thain" To: "JZ" Cc: "Scott Laird" ; "Brandon High" ; ; "Peter Korn" Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:25 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > > On 7-Jan-09, at 9:43 PM, JZ wrote: > >> ok, Scott, that sounded sincere. I am not going to do the pic thing on >> you. >> >> But do I have to spell this out to you -- somethings are invented not >> for >> home use? >> >> Cindy, would you want to do ZFS at home, > > Why would you disrespect your personal data? ZFS is perfect for home use, > for reasons that have been discussed on this list and elsewhere. > > Apple also recognises this, which is why ZFS is in OS X 10.5 and will > presumably become the default boot filesystem. > > Sorry to wander a little offtopic, but IMHO - Apple needs to acknowledge, > and tell their customers, that hard drives are unreliable consumables. > > I am desperately looking forward to the day when they recognise the need > to ship all their systems with: > 1) mirrored storage out of the box; > 2) easy user-swappable drives; > 3) foolproof fault notification and rectification. > > There is no reason why an Apple customer should not have this level of > protection for her photo and video library, Great American Novel, or > whatever. Time Machine is a good first step (though it doesn't often work > smoothly for me with a LaCie external FW drive). > > These are the neglected pieces, IMHO, of their touted Digital Lifestyle. > > --Toby > > >> or just having some wine and music? >> >> Can we focus on commercial usage? >> please! >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Scott Laird" >> To: "Brandon High" >> Cc: ; "Peter Korn" >> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:28 PM >> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? >> >> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Brandon High wrote: On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Joel Buckley wrote: > How much is your time worth? Quite a bit. > Consider the engineering effort going into every Sun Server. > Any system from Sun is more than sufficient for a home server. > You want more disks, then buy one with more slots. Done. A few years ago, I put together the NAS box currently in use at home for $300 for 1TB of space. Mind you, I recycled the RAM from another box and the four 250GB disks were free. I think 250 drives were around $200 at the time, so let's say the system price was $1200. I don't think there's a Sun server that takes 4+ drives anywhere near $1200. The X4200 uses 2.5" drives, but costs $4255. Actually adding more drives ups the cost further. That means the afternoon I spent setting my server up was worth $3000. I should tell my boss that. A more reasonable comparison would be the Ultra 24. A system with 4x250 drives is $1650. I could build a 4 TB system today for *less* than my 1TB system of 2 years ago, so let's use 3x750 + 1x250 drives. (That's all the store will let me) and the price jumps to $2641. Assume that I buy the cheapest x64 system (the X2100 M2 at $1228) and add a drive tray because I want 4 drives ... well I can't. The cheapest drive tray is $7465. I have trouble justifying Sun hardware for many business applications that don't require SPARC, let alone for the home. For custom systems that most tinkerers would want at home, a shop like Silicon Mechanics (http://www.siliconmechanics.com/) (or even Dell or HP) is almost always a better deal on hardware. >>> >>> I agree completely. About a year ago I spent around $800 (w/o drives) >>> on a NAS box for home. I used a 4x PCI-X single-Xeon Supermicro MB, a >>> giant case, and a single 8-port Supermicro SATA card. Then I dropped >>> a pair of 80 GB boot drives and 9x 500 GB drives into it. With raidz2 >>> plus a spare, that gives me around 2.7T of usable space. When I >>> filled that up a few weeks back, I bought 2 more 8-port SATA cards, 2 >>> Supermicro CSE-M35T-1B 5-drive hot-swap bays, and 9 1.5T drives, all >>> for under $2k. That's around $0.25/GB for the expansion and $0.36 >>> overall, including last year's expensive 500G drives. >>> >>> The closest that I can come to this config using current Sun hardware >>> is probably the X4540 w/ 500G drives; that's $35k for 14T of usable >>> disk (5x 8-way raidz2 + 1 spare + 2 boot disks), $2.48/GB. It's much >>> nicer hardware but I don't care. I'd also need an electrician (for 2x >>> 240V circuits), a dedicated server room in my house (for the fan >>> noise), and probably a divorce lawyer :-). >>> >>> Sun's hardware really isn't price-competitive on the low end, >>> espe
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
On 7-Jan-09, at 9:43 PM, JZ wrote: > ok, Scott, that sounded sincere. I am not going to do the pic thing > on you. > > But do I have to spell this out to you -- somethings are invented > not for > home use? > > Cindy, would you want to do ZFS at home, Why would you disrespect your personal data? ZFS is perfect for home use, for reasons that have been discussed on this list and elsewhere. Apple also recognises this, which is why ZFS is in OS X 10.5 and will presumably become the default boot filesystem. Sorry to wander a little offtopic, but IMHO - Apple needs to acknowledge, and tell their customers, that hard drives are unreliable consumables. I am desperately looking forward to the day when they recognise the need to ship all their systems with: 1) mirrored storage out of the box; 2) easy user-swappable drives; 3) foolproof fault notification and rectification. There is no reason why an Apple customer should not have this level of protection for her photo and video library, Great American Novel, or whatever. Time Machine is a good first step (though it doesn't often work smoothly for me with a LaCie external FW drive). These are the neglected pieces, IMHO, of their touted Digital Lifestyle. --Toby > or just having some wine and music? > > Can we focus on commercial usage? > please! > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Laird" > To: "Brandon High" > Cc: ; "Peter Korn" > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:28 PM > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? > > >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Brandon High >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Joel Buckley >>> wrote: How much is your time worth? >>> >>> Quite a bit. >>> Consider the engineering effort going into every Sun Server. Any system from Sun is more than sufficient for a home server. You want more disks, then buy one with more slots. Done. >>> >>> A few years ago, I put together the NAS box currently in use at home >>> for $300 for 1TB of space. Mind you, I recycled the RAM from another >>> box and the four 250GB disks were free. I think 250 drives were >>> around >>> $200 at the time, so let's say the system price was $1200. >>> >>> I don't think there's a Sun server that takes 4+ drives anywhere >>> near >>> $1200. The X4200 uses 2.5" drives, but costs $4255. Actually adding >>> more drives ups the cost further. That means the afternoon I spent >>> setting my server up was worth $3000. I should tell my boss that. >>> >>> A more reasonable comparison would be the Ultra 24. A system with >>> 4x250 drives is $1650. I could build a 4 TB system today for *less* >>> than my 1TB system of 2 years ago, so let's use 3x750 + 1x250 >>> drives. >>> (That's all the store will let me) and the price jumps to $2641. >>> >>> Assume that I buy the cheapest x64 system (the X2100 M2 at $1228) >>> and >>> add a drive tray because I want 4 drives ... well I can't. The >>> cheapest drive tray is $7465. >>> >>> I have trouble justifying Sun hardware for many business >>> applications >>> that don't require SPARC, let alone for the home. For custom systems >>> that most tinkerers would want at home, a shop like Silicon >>> Mechanics >>> (http://www.siliconmechanics.com/) (or even Dell or HP) is almost >>> always a better deal on hardware. >> >> I agree completely. About a year ago I spent around $800 (w/o >> drives) >> on a NAS box for home. I used a 4x PCI-X single-Xeon Supermicro >> MB, a >> giant case, and a single 8-port Supermicro SATA card. Then I dropped >> a pair of 80 GB boot drives and 9x 500 GB drives into it. With >> raidz2 >> plus a spare, that gives me around 2.7T of usable space. When I >> filled that up a few weeks back, I bought 2 more 8-port SATA cards, 2 >> Supermicro CSE-M35T-1B 5-drive hot-swap bays, and 9 1.5T drives, all >> for under $2k. That's around $0.25/GB for the expansion and $0.36 >> overall, including last year's expensive 500G drives. >> >> The closest that I can come to this config using current Sun hardware >> is probably the X4540 w/ 500G drives; that's $35k for 14T of usable >> disk (5x 8-way raidz2 + 1 spare + 2 boot disks), $2.48/GB. It's much >> nicer hardware but I don't care. I'd also need an electrician >> (for 2x >> 240V circuits), a dedicated server room in my house (for the fan >> noise), and probably a divorce lawyer :-). >> >> Sun's hardware really isn't price-competitive on the low end, >> especially when commercial support offerings have no value to you. >> There's nothing really wrong with this, as long as you understand >> that >> Sun's really only going to be selling into shops where Sun's support >> and extra engineering makes financial sense. In Sun's defense, this >> is kind of an odd system, specially built for unusual requirements. >> >> My NAS box works well enough for me. It's probably eaten ~20 >> hours of >> my time over the past year, partially because my Solaris is really >> rus
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel SS4200-E?
I've got mine sitting on the floor at the moment. Need to find the time to try out the install. Do you know why it would not work with the DOM? I'm planning to use a spare 4GB DOM and keep the EMC one for backup if nothing works. Did you use a video card to install? On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Guido Glaus wrote: > I've done it but could not make it to run from the the dom, had to use a > usb stick :-) > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel SS4200-E?
I've done it but could not make it to run from the the dom, had to use a usb stick :-) -- 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?
But, Tim, you are a super IT guy, and your data is not baby... I just have so many copies of my home baby data, since storage is so so cheap today compared to the wine... [and a baby JAVA thing to keep them in sync...] (BTW, I am not a wine guy, I only do Remy+++) ;-) best, z - Original Message - From: Tim To: JZ Cc: Scott Laird ; Brandon High ; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org ; Peter Korn Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 4:35 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS? On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:43 PM, JZ wrote: ok, Scott, that sounded sincere. I am not going to do the pic thing on you. But do I have to spell this out to you -- somethings are invented not for home use? Cindy, would you want to do ZFS at home, or just having some wine and music? Can we focus on commercial usage? please! I dunno about you, but I need somewhere to store that music so I can stream it throughout the house while I'm drinking that wine ;) A single disk windows box isn't really my cup-o-tea. Plus, I'm a geek, my vmware farm needs it's nfs mounts on some solid, high performing gear. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:43 PM, JZ wrote: > ok, Scott, that sounded sincere. I am not going to do the pic thing on you. > > But do I have to spell this out to you -- somethings are invented not for > home use? > > Cindy, would you want to do ZFS at home, or just having some wine and > music? > > Can we focus on commercial usage? > please! > > > I dunno about you, but I need somewhere to store that music so I can stream it throughout the house while I'm drinking that wine ;) A single disk windows box isn't really my cup-o-tea. Plus, I'm a geek, my vmware farm needs it's nfs mounts on some solid, high performing gear. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs destroy is taking a long time...
David W. Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:26 -0500, Brian H. Nelson wrote: > >> David Smith wrote: >> >>> I was wondering if anyone has any experience with how long a "zfs destroy" >>> of about 40 TB should take? So far, it has been about an hour... Is there >>> any good way to tell if it is working or if it is hung? >>> >>> Doing a "zfs list" just hangs. If you do a more specific zfs list, then it >>> is okay... zfs list pool/another-fs >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> David >>> >>> >> I can't voice to something like 40 TB, but I can share a related story >> (on Solaris 10u5). >> >> A couple days ago, I tried to zfs destroy a clone of a snapshot of a 191 >> GB zvol. It didn't complete right away, but the machine appeared to >> continue working on it, so I decided to let it go overnight (it was near >> the end of the day). Well, by about 4:00 am the next day, the machine >> had completely ran out of memory and hung. When I came in, I forced a >> sync from prom to get it back up. While it was booting, it stopped >> during (I think) the zfs initialization part, where it ran the disks for >> about 10 minutes before continuing. When the machine was back up, >> everything appeared to be ok. The clone was still there, although usage >> had changed to zero. >> >> I ended up patching the machine up to the latest u6 kernel + zfs patch >> (13-01 + 139579-01). After that, the zfs destroy went off without a >> hitch. >> >> I turned up bug 6606810 'zfs destroy is taking hours to >> complete' which is supposed to be fixed by 139579-01. I don't know if >> that was the cause of my issue or not. I've got a 2GB kernel dump if >> anyone is interested in looking. >> >> -Brian >> >> > > Brian, > > Thanks for the reply. I'll take a look at the 139579-01 patch. Perhaps > as well a Sun engineer will comment about this issue being fixed with > patches, etc. > My pleasure :-). 6606810 was closed as a dup of 6573681 which was fixed in NV 94 and patch 139579-01. http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6606810 http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6573681 http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-21-139579-01-1 -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs list improvements?
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 14:38, Richard Morris - Sun Microsystems - Burlington United States wrote: > As you point out, the -c option is user friendly while the -depth (or > maybe -d) option is more general. There have been several requests for > the -c option. Would anyone prefer the -depth option? In what cases > would this be used? > > I was thinking when I logged the bug, that -depth (or -d) would be > useful in cases where you've got a "jurassic-like" filesystem layout, > and are interested in seeing just one or two levels. What about an optional argument to -c specifying the depth: zfs list tank tank zfs list -c tank tank tank/home tank/foo zfs list -c 2 tank tank tank/home tank/home/Ireland tank/home/UK tank/home/France tank/home/Germany tank/foo tank/f...@now tank/foo/bar That leaves -d free, at the expense of ugliness in the argument parsing. I would also suggest that 2 is a more logical number than 3 for the last set listed if -c is given an argument, since I would think of -c as "dataset and children", and -c 2 as "dataset and children squared": grandchildren, as compared to "datasets of depth 3". I do think having the more general form available is a good thing to have. Will ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vs HardWare raid - data integrity?
[just for the beloved Orvar] Ok, rule of thumb to save you some open time -- anything with "z", or "j", would probably be safe enough for your baby data. And yeah, I manage my own lunch hours BTW. :-) best, z - Original Message - From: "Orvar Korvar" To: Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:01 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vs HardWare raid - data integrity? Thank you. How does raidz2 compare to raid-2? Safer? Less safe? -- 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 list improvements?
On 01/08/09 06:39, Tim Foster wrote: hi Rich, On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 10:51 -0500, Richard Morris - Sun Microsystems - Burlington United States wrote: As you point out, the -c option is user friendly while the -depth (or maybe -d) option is more general. There have been several requests for the -c option. Would anyone prefer the -depth option? In what cases would this be used? I was thinking when I logged the bug, that -depth (or -d) would be useful in cases where you've got a "jurassic-like" filesystem layout, and are interested in seeing just one or two levels. zfs list -d 3 tank tank/home tank/home/Ireland tank/home/UK tank/home/France tank/home/Germany tank/foo tank/foo/bar allowing you to look at just the level of hierarchy that you're interested in (eg. "How much disk space are users from different countries taking up taking up?"), without needing to grep, or hardcode a list of datasets somewhere. More importantly, with hopefully faster performance than showing all children of tank/home just to get the size of the immediate children. Hi Tim, Both the -c and -d options would eliminate the need to grep or hardcode a list of datasets. And they would both improve zfs list performance by eliminating unnecessary recursion. So adding one of these options probably makes sense. But which one? Is the added complexity of the -d option over the -c option justified? In the above example, wouldn't the question "how much disk space per country" also be answered by zfs list -c /tank/home? Perhaps a layout like this might be a better argument for the -d option? tank/america/Canada tank/america/Mexico tank/america/USA tank/europe/France tank/europe/Germany tank/europe/Ireland But how often would the -d option be provided a value other than 1 or 2? As a point of reference, the ls command also has this issue and does not provide an option to limit the depth of recursion. And ls has no shortage of options (aAbcCdeEfFghHilLmnopqrRstuvVx1@)! Of course, this does not necessarily mean that the -d option would not be useful for zfs list. Other opinions? -- Rich ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs list improvements?
On 01/08/09 06:28, Mike Futerko wrote: > I'd have a few more proposals how to improve zfs list if they don't > contravene the concept of zfs list command. > > Currently zfs list returns error "operation not applicable to datasets > of this type" if you try to list for ex.: "zfs list -t snapshot > file/system" returns above error while it could return what you actually > asked - the list of all snapshots of "file/system". When a specific dataset is provided, zfs list does not return info about child datasets or snapshots unless the -r option is specified. So to get the list of all snapshots of file/system: zfs list -r -t snapshot file/system In this particular case, it might be possible for zfs list to infer that the -r option was intended. > Similar case is if > you try "zfs list file/sys...@snapshot" - can zfs be more smart to > return the snapshot instead of error message if dataset name contains > "@" in its name? zfs list already handles this case correctly. If you are getting an error message then you are probably hitting CR 6758338 which is fixed in SNV_106. > Other thing is zfs list performance... even if you want to get the list > of snapshots with no other properties "zfs list -oname -t snapshot -r > file/system" it still takes quite long time if there are hundreds of > snapshots, while "ls /file/system/.zfs/snapshot" returns immediately. > Can this also be improved somehow please? The fix for CR 6755389 (also in SNV_106) should significantly improve the performance of zfs list when there are hundreds or thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of datasets and/or snapshots. -- Rich ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs cp hangs when the mirrors are removed ..
Karthik, did you ever file a bug or this? I'm experiencing the same hang and wondering how to recover. /Brian -- 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 vs HardWare raid - data integrity?
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:01, Orvar Korvar
wrote:
> Thank you. How does raidz2 compare to raid-2? Safer? Less safe?
Raid-2 is much less used, for one, uses many more disks for parity,
for two, and is much slower in any application I can think of.
Suppose you have 11 100G disks. Raid-2 would use 7 for data and 4 for
parity, total capacity 700G, and would be able to recover from any
single bit flips per data row (e.g., if any disk were lost or
corrupted (!), it could recover its contents). This is not done using
checksums, but rather ECC. One could implement checksums on top of
this, I suppose. A major downside of raid-2 is that "efficient" use
of space only happens when the raid groups are of size 2**k-1 for some
integer k; this is because the Hamming code includes parity bits at
certain intervals (see [1]).
Raidz2, on the other hand, would take your 11 100G disks and use 9 for
data and 2 for parity, and put checksums on blocks. This means that
recovering any two corrupt or missing disks (as opposed to one with
raid-2) is possible; with any two pieces of a block potentially
damaged, one can calculate all the possibilities for what the block
could have been before damage and accept the one whose calculated
checksum matches the stored one. Thus, raidz2 is safer and more
storage-efficient than raid-2.
This is all mostly academic, as nobody uses raid-2. It's only as safe
as raidz (can repair one error, or detect two) and space efficiency
for normal-sized arrays is fairly atrocious. Use raidz{,2} and forget
about it.
Will
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code#General_algorithm
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs destroy is taking a long time...
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:26 -0500, Brian H. Nelson wrote: > David Smith wrote: > > I was wondering if anyone has any experience with how long a "zfs destroy" > > of about 40 TB should take? So far, it has been about an hour... Is there > > any good way to tell if it is working or if it is hung? > > > > Doing a "zfs list" just hangs. If you do a more specific zfs list, then it > > is okay... zfs list pool/another-fs > > > > Thanks, > > > > David > > > > I can't voice to something like 40 TB, but I can share a related story > (on Solaris 10u5). > > A couple days ago, I tried to zfs destroy a clone of a snapshot of a 191 > GB zvol. It didn't complete right away, but the machine appeared to > continue working on it, so I decided to let it go overnight (it was near > the end of the day). Well, by about 4:00 am the next day, the machine > had completely ran out of memory and hung. When I came in, I forced a > sync from prom to get it back up. While it was booting, it stopped > during (I think) the zfs initialization part, where it ran the disks for > about 10 minutes before continuing. When the machine was back up, > everything appeared to be ok. The clone was still there, although usage > had changed to zero. > > I ended up patching the machine up to the latest u6 kernel + zfs patch > (13-01 + 139579-01). After that, the zfs destroy went off without a > hitch. > > I turned up bug 6606810 'zfs destroy is taking hours to > complete' which is supposed to be fixed by 139579-01. I don't know if > that was the cause of my issue or not. I've got a 2GB kernel dump if > anyone is interested in looking. > > -Brian > Brian, Thanks for the reply. I'll take a look at the 139579-01 patch. Perhaps as well a Sun engineer will comment about this issue being fixed with patches, etc. David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs destroy is taking a long time...
David Smith wrote: > I was wondering if anyone has any experience with how long a "zfs destroy" of > about 40 TB should take? So far, it has been about an hour... Is there any > good way to tell if it is working or if it is hung? > > Doing a "zfs list" just hangs. If you do a more specific zfs list, then it > is okay... zfs list pool/another-fs > > Thanks, > > David > I can't voice to something like 40 TB, but I can share a related story (on Solaris 10u5). A couple days ago, I tried to zfs destroy a clone of a snapshot of a 191 GB zvol. It didn't complete right away, but the machine appeared to continue working on it, so I decided to let it go overnight (it was near the end of the day). Well, by about 4:00 am the next day, the machine had completely ran out of memory and hung. When I came in, I forced a sync from prom to get it back up. While it was booting, it stopped during (I think) the zfs initialization part, where it ran the disks for about 10 minutes before continuing. When the machine was back up, everything appeared to be ok. The clone was still there, although usage had changed to zero. I ended up patching the machine up to the latest u6 kernel + zfs patch (13-01 + 139579-01). After that, the zfs destroy went off without a hitch. I turned up bug 6606810 'zfs destroy is taking hours to complete' which is supposed to be fixed by 139579-01. I don't know if that was the cause of my issue or not. I've got a 2GB kernel dump if anyone is interested in looking. -Brian -- --- Brian H. Nelson Youngstown State University System Administrator Media and Academic Computing bnelson[at]cis.ysu.edu --- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Benchmarking ZFS via NFS
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Carsten Aulbert wrote: >> >> My experience with iozone is that it refuses to run on an NFS client of >> a Solaris server using ZFS since it performs a test and then refuses to >> work since it says that the filesystem is not implemented correctly. >> Commenting a line of code in iozone will get over this hurdle. This >> seems to be a religious issue with the iozone maintainer. > > Interesting, I've been running this on a Linux client accessing a ZFS > file system from one of our Thumpers without any source modifications > and problems. I think that the problem only occurs when the client is also Solaris. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, 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 destroy is taking a long time...
A few more details: The system is a Sun x4600 running Solaris 10 Update 4. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Odd network performance with ZFS/CIFS
I have just built an opensolaris box (2008.11) as a small fileserver (6x 1TB drives as RAIDZ2, kernel CIFS) for home media use and I am noticing an odd behavior copying files to the box. My knowledge of monitoring/analysis tools under Solaris is very limited, and so far I have just been using the System Monitor that pops up with ctrl-alt-del, and the numbers I am reporting come from that. When copying files (a small number of large files from a Mac to the Solaris/CIFS server) I initially see network usage of 40-45 MB/s which is pretty much what I would expect from single spindle disks over GigE through a SoHo switch that does not support jumbo frames. However, I only see this performance for perhaps 10 seconds, then it drops to 25-30 MB/s for about 15-20 seconds, and then it drops again to 17-20 MB/s where it remains for the duration of file transfer. This is not an occasional issue, it happens this way each and every time. At each of the three levels, the speeds are consistent. There is a brief period of inactivity (0.5 s) when the speeds are reduced, leading me to believe that *something* is throttling speeds back. Has anyone else seen this behavior? Any idea where it might be coming from, and what I could do to keep a sustained 40-45 MB/s transfer rate? Any suggestions as to what tools I might use to help diagnose this would be appreciated. At the moment, I am in the process of putting an old Windows box together to see if I can replicate the problem and eliminate the possibility of a cause outside of the Solaris box. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] can't import zpool after upgrade to solaris 10u6
Here's what I did: * had a t1000 with a zpool under /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s7 on solaris 10u4 * re-installed with solaris 10u6 (disk layout unchanged) * imported zpool with zpool import -f (I'm forever forgetting to export them first) - this was ok * re-installed with solaris 10u6 and more up-to-date patches (again forgetting to export it) When I do zpool import i get the following: # zpool import pool: zpool id: 17419375665629462002 state: FAULTED status: The pool metadata is corrupted. action: The pool cannot be imported due to damaged devices or data. The pool may be active on another system, but can be imported using the '-f' flag. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-72 config: zpool FAULTED corrupted data c0t0d0s7 ONLINE So I thought I'd done something wrong, however checked the partition layout and it's not changed. However after doing a bit of poking about, I've found some weird stuff - what zdb -l is showing and what's actually on the disk doesn't seem to tally - I can't find that transaction ID from zdb and there seems to be a mixture of version 4 and version 10 uberblocks on disk (and they all have bigger transaction IDs than zdb is showing). Am I missing something? -Steve # zdb -l /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s7 LABEL 0 version=4 name='zpool' state=0 txg=1809157 pool_guid=17419375665629462002 top_guid=12174008987990077602 guid=12174008987990077602 vdev_tree type='disk' id=0 guid=12174008987990077602 path='/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s7' devid='id1,s...@n5000cca321ca2647/h' whole_disk=0 metaslab_array=14 metaslab_shift=30 ashift=9 asize=129904410624 DTL=24 LABEL 1 version=4 name='zpool' state=0 txg=1809157 pool_guid=17419375665629462002 top_guid=12174008987990077602 guid=12174008987990077602 vdev_tree type='disk' id=0 guid=12174008987990077602 path='/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s7' devid='id1,s...@n5000cca321ca2647/h' whole_disk=0 metaslab_array=14 metaslab_shift=30 ashift=9 asize=129904410624 DTL=24 LABEL 2 LABEL 3 -- (sample output from a little script i knocked up) Uberblock Offset: 002 (131072) Uber version: 4 Transaction group: 1831936 Timestamp: 2008-11-20:11:14:49 GUID_SUM: 9ab0d28ccc7d2e94 Uberblock Offset: 0020400 (132096) Uber version: 4 Transaction group: 1831937 Timestamp: 2008-11-20:11:14:54 GUID_SUM: 9ab0d28ccc7d2e94 ... Uber version: 10 Transaction group: 114560 Timestamp: 2009-01-07:09:59:11 GUID_SUM: 9f8d9ef301489223 Uberblock Offset: 0e18400 (14779392) Uber version: 10 Transaction group: 114561 Timestamp: 2009-01-07:09:59:41 GUID_SUM: 9f8d9ef301489223 ... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs destroy is taking a long time...
I was wondering if anyone has any experience with how long a "zfs destroy" of about 40 TB should take? So far, it has been about an hour... Is there any good way to tell if it is working or if it is hung? Doing a "zfs list" just hangs. If you do a more specific zfs list, then it is okay... zfs list pool/another-fs Thanks, David -- 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 vs HardWare raid - data integrity?
RAID 2 is something weird that no one uses, and really only exists on paper as part of Berkeley's original RAID paper, IIRC. raidz2 is more or less RAID 6, just like raidz is more or less RAID 5. With raidz2, you have to lose 3 drives per vdev before data loss occurs. Scott On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Orvar Korvar wrote: > Thank you. How does raidz2 compare to raid-2? Safer? Less safe? > -- > 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] Benchmarking ZFS via NFS
Hi Bob. Bob Friesenhahn wrote: >> Here is the current example - can anyone with deeper knowledge tell me >> if these are reasonable values to start with? > > Everything depends on what you are planning do with your NFS access. For > example, the default blocksize for zfs is 128K. My example tests > performance when doing I/O with small 8K blocks (like a database), which > will severely penalize zfs configured for 128K blocks. > [...] My plans don't count in here, I need to optimize what the users want and they don't have a clue what they will do in 6 months from now, so I guess all detailed planning will fail anyway and I'm just searching for the one size fits almost all... > > My experience with iozone is that it refuses to run on an NFS client of > a Solaris server using ZFS since it performs a test and then refuses to > work since it says that the filesystem is not implemented correctly. > Commenting a line of code in iozone will get over this hurdle. This > seems to be a religious issue with the iozone maintainer. Interesting, I've been running this on a Linux client accessing a ZFS file system from one of our Thumpers without any source modifications and problems. Cheers Carsten ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Benchmarking ZFS via NFS
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Carsten Aulbert wrote: > for the people higher up the ladder), but someone gave a hint to use > multiple threads for testing the ops/s and here I'm a bit at a loss how > to understand the results and if the values are reasonable or not. I will admit that some research is required to understand what is meant by "Parent" and "Children". It seems that "Parent" takes an extra hit by communicating with the "Children". > Here is the current example - can anyone with deeper knowledge tell me > if these are reasonable values to start with? Everything depends on what you are planning do with your NFS access. For example, the default blocksize for zfs is 128K. My example tests performance when doing I/O with small 8K blocks (like a database), which will severely penalize zfs configured for 128K blocks. While NFS writes are synchronous, most NFS I/O is sequential reads and writes of bulk data without much random access. This means that typical NFS I/O will produce larger reads and writes which work ok with ZFS's default configuration. The main penalty for NFS will be for when doing small operations like creating/deleting files, or changing file attributes. My experience with iozone is that it refuses to run on an NFS client of a Solaris server using ZFS since it performs a test and then refuses to work since it says that the filesystem is not implemented correctly. Commenting a line of code in iozone will get over this hurdle. This seems to be a religious issue with the iozone maintainer. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, 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: Log device for rpool (/ root partition) not supported?
This is bug 6727463. On 01/07/09 13:49, Robert Bauer wrote: > Why is it impossible to have a ZFS pool with a log device for the rpool > (device used for the root partition)? > Is this a bug? > I can't boot a ZFS partition / on a zpool which uses also a log device. Maybe > its not supported because then grub should support it too? > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + OpenSolaris for home NAS?
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 17:12, Volker A. Brandt wrote: >> The Samsung HD103UJ drives are nice, if you're not using >> NVidia controllers - there's a bug in either the drives or the >> controllers that makes them drop drives fairly frequently. > > Do you happen to have more details about this problem? Or some > pointers? We have 3 x2200m2 servers that we added pairs of these drives (specifically, the HD753UJ variant: 750GB instead of 1TB) to. We set up small (40G or so, I forget; we didn't really need the space, but buying smaller disks wasn't significantly cheaper) SVM mirrors on two of these machines, and a small SVM mirror plus a large zpool on the third. Within two weeks, all three machines had dropped a disk in some manner. The behavior we saw goes like this: metastat reports errors, output of 'format' changes for the dropped disk but still shows the disk. If the disk is moved to another machine (a different chipset; i.e., with another controller) then it shows up fine, all data intact, everything hunky-dory. We didn't lose data, but we did lose an SVM array and had to restore from backups. We replaced the drives with 4 Maxtors and 2 Seagate ES2s. None have reported problems yet. I don't know of any other solution, if you don't want to add a controller. It doesn't appear to be a problem with the drives, or a problem with the chipset, but the combination of drive+chipset causes wonkiness. Google shows some users having problems with this under XP, so it's probably not just a driver issue. This was what made me suspect the combination was a bad one, and further testing shows that that's probably the case: the drives work on other controllers, and other drives work on these controllers. The drives themselves are still working fine; we moved them to a SCSI->sata jbod with a non-nV controller and they're happy there. Will ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS poor performance on Areca 1231ML
A question: why do you want to use HW raid together with ZFS? I thought ZFS performing better if it was in total control? Would the results have been better if no HW raid controller, and only ZFS? -- 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] [storage-discuss] ZFS iscsi snapshot - VSS compatible?
I don't know if VSS has this capability, but essentially if it can temporarily quiesce a device like a data base does for "warm standby" then a snapshot should work. This would be a very simple Windows side script/batch: 1) Q-Disk 2) Remote trigger snapshot 3) Un Q-Disk I have no idea where to even begin researching VSS unfortunately... James (Sent from my mobile) -Original Message- From: Tim Sent: Wednesday, 07 Jan 2009 23:18 To: Jason J. W. Williams Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; storage-disc...@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [storage-discuss] [zfs-discuss] ZFS iscsi snapshot - VSS compatible? On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote: Since iSCSI is block-level, I don't think the iSCSI intelligence at the file level you're asking for is feasible. VSS is used at the file-system level on either NTFS partitions or over CIFS. -J VSS integration with block protocols is most definitely possible. It just requires *intelligent* software running on the host side. That intelligence would likely need to come from Sun directly in the case of windows on raw hardware as I don't know of any third party apps that work universally with any storage system. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vs HardWare raid - data integrity?
Thank you. How does raidz2 compare to raid-2? Safer? Less safe? -- 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 list improvements?
hi Rich, On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 10:51 -0500, Richard Morris - Sun Microsystems - Burlington United States wrote: > As you point out, the -c option is user friendly while the -depth (or > maybe -d) option is more general. There have been several requests for > the -c option. Would anyone prefer the -depth option? In what cases > would this be used? I was thinking when I logged the bug, that -depth (or -d) would be useful in cases where you've got a "jurassic-like" filesystem layout, and are interested in seeing just one or two levels. zfs list -d 3 tank tank/home tank/home/Ireland tank/home/UK tank/home/France tank/home/Germany tank/foo tank/foo/bar allowing you to look at just the level of hierarchy that you're interested in (eg. "How much disk space are users from different countries taking up taking up?"), without needing to grep, or hardcode a list of datasets somewhere. More importantly, with hopefully faster performance than showing all children of tank/home just to get the size of the immediate children. It's particularly important for snapshots - as the number of snapshots grows, zfs list without limits like this can take a long time (even with the massive zfs list performance improvements :-) [ hacks around listing the contents of .zfs/snapshots/ only work when filesystems are mounted unfortunately, so I'd been avoiding doing that in the zfs-auto-snapshot code ] cheers, tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Problems at 90% zpool capacity 2008.05
On 1/8/09, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 22:18 -0700, Neil Perrin wrote: > > I vaguely remember a time when UFS had limits to prevent > > ordinary users from consuming past a certain limit, allowing > > only the super-user to use it. Not that I'm advocating that > > approach for ZFS. man page of newfs, on Solaris 8 (5.8), gives the option: -m free The minimum percentage of free space to maintain in the file system (between 1% and 99%, inclusively). This space is off-limits to normal users. Once the file system is filled to this threshold, only the super-user can continue writing to the file system. This parameter can be subsequently changed using the tunefs(1M) command. The default is ((64 Mbytes/partition size) * 100), rounded down to the nearest integer and limited between 1% and 10%, inclusively. We always kept it to 1 % but were very glad to have it when, for any reason, the users had nothing left... I should add that we were running most of the time above 90 % (it is just thermodynamic, gas occupy all available space!) and could not see any real slowdown between 40 % and 99 % full (ufs+logging on sparc Solaris 8). Paul ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs list improvements?
Hello > This seems like a reasonable proposal to enhance zfs list. But it would > also be good to add as few new options to zfs list as possible. So it > probably makes sense to add at most one of these new options. Or > perhaps add an optional depth argument to the -r option instead? > > As you point out, the -c option is user friendly while the -depth (or > maybe -d) option is more general. There have been several requests for > the -c option. Would anyone prefer the -depth option? In what cases > would this be used? I'd have a few more proposals how to improve zfs list if they don't contravene the concept of zfs list command. Currently zfs list returns error "operation not applicable to datasets of this type" if you try to list for ex.: "zfs list -t snapshot file/system" returns above error while it could return what you actually asked - the list of all snapshots of "file/system". Similar case is if you try "zfs list file/sys...@snapshot" - can zfs be more smart to return the snapshot instead of error message if dataset name contains "@" in its name? Other thing is zfs list performance... even if you want to get the list of snapshots with no other properties "zfs list -oname -t snapshot -r file/system" it still takes quite long time if there are hundreds of snapshots, while "ls /file/system/.zfs/snapshot" returns immediately. Can this also be improved somehow please? Thanks Mike ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 'zfs recv' is very slow
Hello > Yah, the incrementals are from a 30TB volume, with about 1TB used. > Watching iostat on each side during the incremental sends, the sender > side is hardly doing anything, maybe 50iops read, and that could be > from other machines accessing it, really light load. > The receiving side however, for about 3 minutes it is peaking around > 1500 iops reads, and no writes. Have you tries truss on both sides? From my experiments I found that sending side on beginning of the transfer mostly sleeps while receiving lists all available snapshots on the syncing file system. So if you have a lot of snapshots on receiving side (as in my case) the process will take long time sending no data but listing the snapshots. The worst case is if you use recursive sync of hundreds of file system with hundreds of snapshots on each. I'm sure this must be optimized somehow otherwise it's almost useless in practice. Regards Mike ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Benchmarking ZFS via NFS
Hi all, among many other things I recently restarted benchmarking ZFS over NFS3 performance between X4500 (host) and Linux clients. I've just iozone quite a while ago and am still a bit at a loss understanding the results. The automatic mode is pretty ok (and generates nice 3D plots for the people higher up the ladder), but someone gave a hint to use multiple threads for testing the ops/s and here I'm a bit at a loss how to understand the results and if the values are reasonable or not. Here is the current example - can anyone with deeper knowledge tell me if these are reasonable values to start with? Thanks a lot Carsten Iozone: Performance Test of File I/O Version $Revision: 3.315 $ Compiled for 64 bit mode. Build: linux-AMD64 Contributors:William Norcott, Don Capps, Isom Crawford, Kirby Collins Al Slater, Scott Rhine, Mike Wisner, Ken Goss Steve Landherr, Brad Smith, Mark Kelly, Dr. Alain CYR, Randy Dunlap, Mark Montague, Dan Million, Gavin Brebner, Jean-Marc Zucconi, Jeff Blomberg, Benny Halevy, Erik Habbinga, Kris Strecker, Walter Wong, Joshua Root. Run began: Wed Jan 7 09:31:49 2009 Multi_buffer. Work area 16777216 bytes OPS Mode. Output is in operations per second. Record Size 8 KB SYNC Mode. File size set to 4194304 KB Command line used: ../iozone3_315/src/current/iozone -m -t 8 -T -O -r 8k -o -s 4G iozone Time Resolution = 0.01 seconds. Processor cache size set to 1024 Kbytes. Processor cache line size set to 32 bytes. File stride size set to 17 * record size. Throughput test with 8 threads Each thread writes a 4194304 Kbyte file in 8 Kbyte records Children see throughput for 8 initial writers =4925.20 ops/sec Parent sees throughput for 8 initial writers =4924.65 ops/sec Min throughput per thread = 615.61 ops/sec Max throughput per thread = 615.69 ops/sec Avg throughput per thread = 615.65 ops/sec Min xfer= 524219.00 ops Children see throughput for 8 rewriters=4208.45 ops/sec Parent sees throughput for 8 rewriters =4208.42 ops/sec Min throughput per thread = 525.88 ops/sec Max throughput per thread = 526.22 ops/sec Avg throughput per thread = 526.06 ops/sec Min xfer= 523944.00 ops Children see throughput for 8 readers = 11986.99 ops/sec Parent sees throughput for 8 readers = 11986.46 ops/sec Min throughput per thread =1481.13 ops/sec Max throughput per thread =1512.71 ops/sec Avg throughput per thread =1498.37 ops/sec Min xfer= 513361.00 ops Children see throughput for 8 re-readers= 12017.70 ops/sec Parent sees throughput for 8 re-readers = 12017.22 ops/sec Min throughput per thread =1486.72 ops/sec Max throughput per thread =1520.35 ops/sec Avg throughput per thread =1502.21 ops/sec Min xfer= 512761.00 ops Children see throughput for 8 reverse readers = 25741.62 ops/sec Parent sees throughput for 8 reverse readers= 25735.91 ops/sec Min throughput per thread =3141.50 ops/sec Max throughput per thread =3282.11 ops/sec Avg throughput per thread =3217.70 ops/sec Min xfer= 501956.00 ops Children see throughput for 8 stride readers=1434.73 ops/sec Parent sees throughput for 8 stride readers =1434.71 ops/sec Min throughput per thread = 122.51 ops/sec Max throughput per thread = 297.87 ops/sec Avg throughput per thread = 179.34 ops/sec Min xfer= 215638.00 ops Children see throughput for 8 random readers= 529.83 ops/sec Parent sees throughput for 8 random readers = 529.83 ops/sec Min throughput per thread = 55.63 ops/sec Max throughput per thread = 101.03 ops/sec Avg throughput per thread = 66.
Re: [zfs-discuss] hung when import zpool
Hi Qin Ming Hua wrote: > bash-3.00# zpool import mypool > ^C^C > > it hung when i try to re-import the zpool, has anyone see this before? > How long did you wait? Once a zfs import took 1-2 hours to complete (it was seemingly stuck at a ~30 GB filesystem which it needed to do some work on). Cheer Carsten ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] hung when import zpool
Hi All, I would like to try zfs Self Healing feature as -- http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/demos/selfheal/ but meet some issue, please see my process. bash-3.00# zpool create mypool mirror c3t5006016130603AE5d7 c3t5006016130603AE5d8 bash-3.00# cd /mypool/ bash-3.00# cp /export/iozone3_315.tar . bash-3.00# digest -a md5 iozone3_315.tar e5997fa99c538e067bf5eefde90dd423 bash-3.00# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/dsk/c3t5006016130603AE5d8 bs=1024 count=20480 20480+0 records in 20480+0 records out bash-3.00# zpool status mypool pool: mypool state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM mypool ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t5006016130603AE5d7 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t5006016130603AE5d8 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors bash-3.00# cd / bash-3.00# zpool export mypool bash-3.00# zpool import mypool ^C^C it hung when i try to re-import the zpool, has anyone see this before? bash-3.00# uname -vi Generic_120012-14 i86pc bash-3.00# cat /etc/release Solaris 10 8/07 s10x_u4wos_12b X86 Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms. Assembled 16 August 2007 -- Best regards, Colin Qin ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
