[zfs-discuss] zfs kernel compilation issue
I'm trying to compile zfs kernel on the following machine
bash-3.2# uname -a
SunOS solaris-b119-44 5.11 snv_119 i86pc i386 i86pc
I set the env properly using bldenv -d ./opensolaris.sh.
bash-3.2# pwd
/export/testws/usr/src/uts
bash-3.2# dmake
dmake: defaulting to parallel mode.
See the man page dmake(1) for more information on setting up the .dmakerc file.
/export/testws/usr/src/uts/common/sys
/export/testws/usr/src/uts/common/rpc
/export/testws/usr/src/uts/common/rpcsvc
/export/testws/usr/src/uts/common/gssapi
/export/testws/usr/src/uts/common/idmap
/export/testws/usr/src/uts/intel
/export/testws/usr/src/uts/intel/genassym
/export/testws/usr/src/tools/proto/opt/onbld/bin/genoffsets -s
/export/testws/usr/src/tools/proto/opt/onbld/bin/i386/ctfstabs -r
/export/testws/usr/src/tools/proto/opt/onbld/bin/i386/ctfconvert
/opt/onbld/bin/i386/cw -_cc -_noecho -W0,-xdbggen=no%usedonly
-_gcc=-fno-dwarf2-indirect-strings -m64 -Ui386 -U__i386 -xO3
../../intel/amd64/ml/amd64.il -D_ASM_INLINES -Xa -xspace -xmodel=kernel
-Wu,-save_args -v -xildoff -g -xc99=%all -W0,-noglobal
-_gcc=-fno-dwarf2-indirect-strings -xdebugformat=stabs -errtags=yes
-errwarn=%all -W0,-xglobalstatic -xstrconst -D_KERNEL -D_SYSCALL32
-D_SYSCALL32_IMPL -D_ELF64 -D_DDI_STRICT -Dsun -D__sun -D__SVR4
-I../../intel -I../../common/brand/lx -Y I,../../common
../../intel/genassym/offsets.in ../../intel/genassym/obj64/genassym.h
cc: Warning: illegal option -m64
cc: -xmodel should be used with -xarch={amd64|generic64}
genoffsets: /opt/onbld/bin/i386/cw failed with status 1
*** Error code 1
dmake: Fatal error: Command failed for target
`../../intel/genassym/obj64/genassym.h'
Current working directory /export/testws/usr/src/uts/intel/genassym
*** Error code 1
The following command caused the error:
BUILD_TYPE=OBJ64 VERSION='testws' dmake def.targ
dmake: Fatal error: Command failed for target `def.obj64'
Current working directory /export/testws/usr/src/uts/intel/genassym
*** Error code 1
The following command caused the error:
cd genassym; pwd; dmake def
dmake: Fatal error: Command failed for target `genassym'
Current working directory /export/testws/usr/src/uts/intel
*** Error code 1
The following command caused the error:
cd intel; pwd; dmake def.prereq
dmake: Fatal error: Command failed for target `intel.prereq'
Current working directory /export/testws/usr/src/uts
I would like to know why its picking up amd64 config params from the Makefile,
while uname -a clearly shows that its i386 ?
Thanks,
pak
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to prevent /usr/bin/chmod from followingsymboliclinks?
Remove the -R after chmod when running this command! Adding -R here is of course just as dangerous as running it without find. Lesson learned: Cut'n'paste is dangerous.. -- 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] shrink the rpool zpool or increase rpool zpool via add disk.
casper@sun.com wrote: Randall Badilla wrote: Hi all: First; it is possible modify the boot zpool rpool after OS installation...? I install the OS on the whole 72GB harddisk.. it is mirrored so If I want to decrease the rpool; for example resize to a 36GB slice it can be done? As far I remember on UFS/SVM I was able to resize boot OS disk via detach mirror (so tranforming to one-way mirror); ajust the partitions then attach de mirror. After sync boot form the resized mirror; re-doing the resize on the remaining mirror and attach mirror and reboot. Dowtime reduced to a reboot times. Yes, you can follow same procedure with zfs (details will differ of course). You can actually change the partitions while you're using the slice. But after changing the size of both slices you may need to reboot I've used it also when going from ufs to zfs for boot. But the OP wants to decrease a slice size which if it would work at all could lead to loss of data. -- Robert Milkowski http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Finding SATA cards for ZFS; was Lundman home NAS
On 03/08/09 17:35, Neal Pollack wrote: On 07/31/09 06:12 PM, Jorgen Lundman wrote: Finding a SATA card that would work with Solaris, and be hot-swap, and more than 4 ports, sure took a while. Oh and be reasonably priced ;) Let's take this first point; card that works with Solaris I might try to find some engineers to write device drivers to improve this situation. Would this alias be interested in teaching me which 3 or 4 cards they would put at the top of the wish list for Solaris support? I assume the current feature gap is defined as needing driver support for PCI-express add-in cards that have 4 to 8 ports inexpensive JBOD, not expensive HW RAID, and can handle hot-swap while running OS. Would this be correct? That would be correct, except I don't know any cheap, 4- to 8-port PCIe SATA cards. I'm still finding that the Supermicro PCI-X 8-port cards are the cheapest option. But they require PCI-X slot for optimal performance, which generally means a pricey mobo. R. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] change raidz1 to raidz2 with BP rewrite?
Will BP rewrite allow adding a drive to raidz1 to get raidz2? And how is status on BP rewrite? Far away? Not started yet? Planning? -- 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 kernel compilation issue
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 23:12 -0700, P. Anil Kumar wrote: I would like to know why its picking up amd64 config params from the Makefile, while uname -a clearly shows that its i386 ? it's behaving as designed. on solaris, uname -a always shows i386 regardless of whether the system is in 32-bit or 64-bit mode. you can use the isainfo command to tell if amd64 is available. on i386, we always build both 32-bit and 64-bit kernel modules; the bootloader will figure out which kernel to load. - Bill ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] change raidz1 to raidz2 with BP rewrite?
Will BP rewrite allow adding a drive to raidz1 to get raidz2? And how is status on BP rewrite? Far away? Not started yet? Planning? BP rewrite is an important component technology, but there's a bunch beyond that. It's not a high priority right now for us at Sun. Adam -- Adam Leventhal, Fishworkshttp://blogs.sun.com/ahl ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Change the volblocksize of a ZFS volume
Question : Is there a way to change the volume blocksize say via 'zfs snapshot send/receive'? As I see things, this isn't possible as the target volume (including property values) gets overwritten by 'zfs receive'. By default, properties are not received. To pass properties, you need to use the -R flag. I have tried that, and while it works for properties like compression, I have not found a way to preserve a non-default volblocksize across zfs send | zfs receive. the zvol created on the receive side is always defaulting to 8k. Is there a way to do this? Thanks. -- 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] change raidz1 to raidz2 with BP rewrite?
On Aug 29, 2009, at 12:48, Adam Leventhal wrote: Will BP rewrite allow adding a drive to raidz1 to get raidz2? And how is status on BP rewrite? Far away? Not started yet? Planning? BP rewrite is an important component technology, but there's a bunch beyond that. It's not a high priority right now for us at Sun. What's the bug / RFE number for it? (So those of us with contracts can add a request for it.) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Pulsing write performance
Hi, happens on opensolaris build 101b and 111b. Arc cache max set to 6GB, joined to a windows 2003 r2 ad domain. With a pool of 4 15Krpm drives in a 2 way mirror. The bnx driver has been changed to have offloading enabled. Not much else has been changed. Ok, so when the chache fills and needs to be flushed, when the flush occurs it locks access to it, so no read? or writes can occur from cache, and as everything will go through the arc, nothing can happen until the arc has finished its flush. And to compensate for this, I would have to either reduce the cache size to one that is small enough that the disk array can write it at such a speed that the pauses are reduced to ones that are not really noticable. Wouldnt that then impact the overal burst write performance also. Why doesnt the arc allow writes while flushing? or just have 2 caches so that one can keep taking writes while the other flushes. If it allowed writes to the buffer while it was flushing, it would just reduce the write speed down to what the disks can handel wouldnt it? Anyway, thanks for the info I will give that parameter a go, see how it works. Thanks -- 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] Pulsing write performance
Ok, so by limiting the write cache to that of the controller you were able to remove the pauses? How id that affect your overall write performance, if at all? thanks I will give that ago. 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] Pulsing write performance
I dont have any windows machine connected to it over iscsi (yet). My reference to the windows servers was, having the same hapdware running windows and its read writes not having these problems, so it isnt hardware causing it. But when I do eventually get iscsi going I will send a message if i have teh same problems. Also with your replication, whats teh perfomance like, does it impact the overall write performance of your server having it enabled, is the replication continuous? 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] cannot import 'tank': pool is formatted using a newer ZFS version
Yes, setting the Boot Environment repository URL to http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev/ worked. My pool had been upgraded to ZFS version 16 previously using the dev repo. 'zpool get all tank' shows the ZFS version. But you can't use this command unless the pool is imported, so when you encounter problems like I did, you can't see which version the pool's using. -- 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] Pulsing write performance
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009, David Bond wrote: Ok, so when the chache fills and needs to be flushed, when the flush occurs it locks access to it, so no read? or writes can occur from cache, and as everything will go through the arc, nothing can happen until the arc has finished its flush. It has not been proven that reads from the ARC stop. It is clear that reads from physical disk temporarily stop. It is not clear (to me) if reads from physical disk stop because of the huge number of TXG sync write operations (up to 5 seconds worth) which are queued prior to the read request, or if reads are intentionally blocked due to some sort of coherency management. And to compensate for this, I would have to either reduce the cache size to one that is small enough that the disk array can write it at such a speed that the pauses are reduced to ones that are not really noticable. That would work. There is likely to be more total physical I/O though since delaying the writes tends to eliminate many redundant writes. For example, an application which re-writes the same file over and over again would be sending more of that data to physical disk. 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] cannot import 'tank': pool is formatted using a newer ZFS version
BTW, if you're interested in seeing my attempts to migrate from a 160 GB IDE drive-based root boot pool to a pair of mirrored 30 GB SSDs, then take a look here: http://breden.org.uk/2009/08/29/home-fileserver-mirrored-ssd-zfs-root-boot/ -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
