Re: [zfs-discuss] mimic size=1024m setting in /etc/vfstab whenusing rpool/swap (zfs root)
Thanks for the reply. Sorry i confused you too. when I mentioned ufs , i just meant ufs root scenario (pre u6). Suppose I have a 136G Hdd which as my boot disk,which has been sliced it like s0-80gb (root slice) s1-55Gb (swap slice) s7- (SVM metadb) My understanding was that if I had 16Gb of memory, my "df -h /tmp" output should be something like tmp=16+55 - (memory used by solaris) And if I specify size=512m in the /etc/vfstab file for swap, my /tmp would still show $tmp size instead of 512m but I would not be able to copy an 700mb iso into /tmp. Hope I am clear. 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] mimic size=1024m setting in /etc/vfstab when using rpool/swap (zfs root)
On Jan 31, 2010, at 10:15 PM, Prakash Kochummen wrote: > Hi, > > While using ufs root, we had an option for limiting the /tmp size using mount > -o size manual option or setting size=1024m in the vfstab. This is no different when using ZFS root. /tmp is, by default, a tmpfs file system. > Do we have any comparable option available when we use zfs root. If we > execute > zfs set size=1024m rpool/swap > it resizes the whole of the swap area which results in reducing the VM size. Yes, but the equivalent for a UFS root would be to format the swap device and change the partition size. Clearly, the ZFS solution is simpler and safer. > AFAIK in the ufs option for limiting swap size, we are just limiting the > filesystem behaviour of the tmpfs filesystem while the kernel will still be > able to use the swap space for paging etc. Is this correct understanding. By default, the Solaris 10 installer does not use UFS for swap. So there is no "ufs option for limiting swap size." -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] mimic size=1024m setting in /etc/vfstab when using rpool/swap (zfs root)
Hi, While using ufs root, we had an option for limiting the /tmp size using mount -o size manual option or setting size=1024m in the vfstab. Do we have any comparable option available when we use zfs root. If we execute zfs set size=1024m rpool/swap it resizes the whole of the swap area which results in reducing the VM size. AFAIK in the ufs option for limiting swap size, we are just limiting the filesystem behaviour of the tmpfs filesystem while the kernel will still be able to use the swap space for paging etc. Is this correct understanding. Thanks in advance. Rgds PK -- 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] Home ZFS NAS - 2 drives or 3?
I thank each of you for all of your insights. I think if this was a production system I'd abandon the idea of 2 drives and get a more capable system, maybe a 2U box with lots of SAS drives so I could use RAIDZ configurations. But in this case, I think all I can do is try some things until I understand it better. Please continue to add to the discussion as I learn something each time someone posts a reply. Thanks again -- 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] server hang with compression on, ping timeouts from remote machine
Thanks Bill, that looks relevant. Note however this only happens with gzip compression, but it's definiteness something I've experienced. I've decided to wait for the next full release before upgrading. I was just wondering if the problem was resolved. I'll migrate to COMSTAR soon, I hope the kernel mode iscsi will make a difference. -- 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] Is LSI SAS3081E-R suitable for a ZFS NAS ?
Hey Mark, I spent *so* many hours looking for that firmware. Would you please post the link? Did the firmware dl you found come with fcode? Running blade 2000 here (SPARC). Thx Jake On Jan 26, 2010 11:52 AM, "Mark Nipper" wrote: > It may depend on the firmware you're running. We've > got a SAS1068E based > card in Dell R710 at... Well, I may have misspoke. I just spent a good portion of yesterday upgrading to the latest firmware myself (downloaded from SuperMicro's FTP, version 1.26.00 also; after I figured out I had to pass the -o option to mptutil to force the flash since it was complaining about a mismatched card or some such) and I thought that the machine had locked up again later in the day yesterday because I couldn't ssh into the machine. To my surprise though, I was able to log into the machine just fine this morning directly on the console from the command line. It seems the snv_125 bug with /dev/ptmx bit me (the "error: /dev/ptmx: Permission denied" problem that required me tracking down the release notes for snv_125 to figure out the problem) and the server was happy otherwise. More importantly, the zpool activity had all finished and I have three clean spares again! Normally this amount of I/O would have totally killed the machine! So somewhere between upgrading the firmware to the latest version and upgrading to snv_131, it looks like the problem may have actually been addressed. I'm guardedly optimistic at this point, given the previous problems I've had so far with this on-board controller. Interesting to hear someone else with the same chip but on an expansion card has no problems (but was with the on-board chip). -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zf... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] quick overhead sizing for DDT and L2ARC
Two related questions: - given an existing pool with dedup'd data, how can I find the current size of the DDT? I presume some zdb work to find and dump the relevant object, but what specifically? - what's the expansion ratio for the memory overhead of L2ARC entries? If I know my DDT can fit on a ssd of size X, that's good - but how much RAM do I need for that ssd to be usable effectively as l2 cache? -- Dan. pgpVxo12Ymvk5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Obtaining zpool volume size from a C coded application.
Ian, Thank you very much for your response. On Friday, as I was writing my post, I was navigating through the zpool user land binary's source code and had observed that method. I was just hoping that there was some other and simpler way. I guess not. Unless the time was taken to patch ZFS with an additional supported ioctl() to return a total accessible "block" count of the zpool. That is the beauty of open source. Again, thank you very much for your reply. You have been very helpful. -- 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] Home ZFS NAS - 2 drives or 3?
On Sat, Jan 30 at 18:07, Frank Middleton wrote: After more than a year or so of experience with ZFS on drive constrained systems, I am convinced that it is a really good idea to keep the root pool and the data pools separate. That's what we do at the office. The data pool is a collection of mirror vdevs and backed up to another "live" system, while we just put the boot disk on a single SSD with no extra redundancy. It exposes us to a disk failure making the system unable to boot, but I know I can re-install opensolaris from scratch on this system in about 45 minutes (we're only about a dozen pfexec commands away from a "default" installation) so the tradeoff was worth it to us given the expected low failure rate of the SSD combined with how little the rpool device gets written to in normal operation. In a pinch, I can just enable smb on the backup machine in read-only fashion to give people access to their files while the primary is rebuilding. If the backup pool design isn't fast enough, I could just drag the disks over from the primary and import the pool on the backup server. --eric -- Eric D. Mudama edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Is LSI SAS3081E-R suitable for a ZFS NAS ?
See also PSARC 2008/769 which considers 4 KB blocks for the entire OS in a phased approach. http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2008/769/inception.materials/design_doc -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Is LSI SAS3081E-R suitable for a ZFS NAS ?
Mark Bennett writes: > Update: > > For the WD10EARS, the blocks appear to be aligned on the 4k boundary > when zfs uses the whole disk (whole disk as EFI partition). > > Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector > 0usrwm256 931.51Gb 1953508750 > > calc256*512/4096=32 I'm afraid this isn't enough. if you enable compression, any ZFS write can be unaligned. also, if you're using raid-z with an odd number of data disks, some of (most of?) your stripes will be misaligned. ZFS needs to use 4096 octets as the basic block to fully exploit the performance of these disks. -- Kjetil T. Homme Redpill Linpro AS - Changing the game ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs rpool mirror on non-equal drives
On January 30, 2010 10:27:41 AM -0800 Michelle Knight wrote: I did this as a test because I am aware that zpools don't like drives switching controlers without being exported first. They don't mind it at all. It's one of the great things about zfs. What they do mind is being remounted on a system with a different hostid without having been exported first. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Is LSI SAS3081E-R suitable for a ZFS NAS ?
Update: For the WD10EARS, the blocks appear to be aligned on the 4k boundary when zfs uses the whole disk (whole disk as EFI partition). Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector 0usrwm256 931.51Gb 1953508750 calc256*512/4096=32 Mark. -- 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] server hang with compression on, ping timeouts from remote machine
On 01/31/10 07:07, Christo Kutrovsky wrote: I've also experienced similar behavior (short freezes) when running zfs send|zfs receive with compression on LOCALLY on ZVOLs again. Has anyone else experienced this ? Know any of bug? This is on snv117. you might also get better results after the fix to: 6881015 ZFS write activity prevents other threads from running in a timely manner which was fixed in build 129. As a workaround, try a lower gzip compression level -- higher gzip levels usually burn lots more CPU without significantly increasing the compression ratio. - Bill ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Home ZFS NAS - 2 drives or 3?
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 06:07:48PM -0500, Frank Middleton wrote: > On 01/30/10 05:33 PM, Ross Walker wrote: >> Just install the OS on the first drive and add the second drive to form >> a mirror. > > After more than a year or so of experience with ZFS on drive constrained > systems, I am convinced that it is a really good idea to keep the root pool > and the data pools separate. Odd. I have the opposite conclusion. As I became more comfortable using send|recv for rebuilding machines and rearranging disks, most of the reasons for such separation went away. ZFS mechanisms (eg reservations, quotas and multiple BE's) really are a better and more flexible way. The remaining reasons come from the constraints on root pool: single non-raidz vdevs, no slog. Those can be restrictive, but they share a common factor: they both need more disks/controller ports you may not have anyway. Often, systems must be built to the tightest constraint, and if that is the number of disks then I'm more than happy to put data in rpool in return for other benefits. USB sticks and PATA-to-CF cards for rpool are useful alternatives, almost as a way to cheat some extra ports and case space. For me at least, only as a way of working around the rpool constraints (e.g, it lets me have raidz data in a typical generic pc with 4 disk maximum). I wouldn't use them *just* to keep data and BE's in separate pools; if raidz ever becomes bootable, I'd switch to that. There's something to be said for having a usable BE together with your data pool, if you ever need to move the disks elsewhere quickly because of a fault. Your quick replacement board might not have the pata ports for your CF cards at all, for example. I've taken to replicating the datasets from rpool into the data pool in such situations, just as a self-contained backup even if they're not bootable. -- Dan. pgpvIurOfE2IN.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Home ZFS NAS - 2 drives or 3?
Perhaps an expert could kindly chime in an opinion of making the drives one large zpool (rather than separate hard partitions) and using the various options within ZFS to ensure that there is always disk space available to the operating system (zpool reservation) ... but the more I sit and think, the more I'm not sure how that would work on the rpool. There are so many ways of handling this. I still think I'd go with hard partitioning for the OS and data, but that is only because of my lack of overall experience with 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] Home ZFS NAS - 2 drives or 3?
Correct that ... I have seen a bad batch of drives fail in close succession; down to a manufacturing problem. -- 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] Home ZFS NAS - 2 drives or 3?
Hi whitetr6, An interesting situation to which there is no, "right," answer. In fact, many different answers depending on where you put your priorities. I'm with Frank in keeping data and OS separate. As you've only got two drives, I'd put between 30 to 40 gig as an OS pool on each drive (making each individually bootable - I was helped out with the method on this thread - http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=454491) and then the remainder of the drives as data. So you've sort of got... Drive 1 - <-30gig OS-> <-720gig data-> Drive 2 - <-30gig OS-> <-720gig data-> ...completely mirrored and independently bootable. Open Solaris creates its boot partition as a Zpool anyway, so it is relatively straightforward to mirror it. I made a short video of the advice that I was given, here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpzsSptzmyA - and that technique will also cover you for installing on drives of different sizes, so if you upgrade the hard drives later, this technique will hold solid and also enable you to add another drive should you have to replace one. You might have to adjust that advice if you're not using your entire drive for the system partition. The only thing I've ever seen take out both internal drives at the same time is a power surge by either external sources, or an overheated PSU blowing in the PC. Surge protection and adequate cooling should minimise the risks. I'm assuming you've got a routine to take snapshots and get them off the box; based on what you've already written. Having an OS booting from USB is possible; from what I've seen of ZFS so far, I believe it would be possible to attach two USB keys and have them mirrored and bootable also! But personally I don't see any real need to do it this way. So, if I were in your shoes, I'd partition as per above and run the two hard disks ... but have an external drive available for backup. It would be worth practising the technique of mirroring the root partition, handling zpools and recovering from failures before committing data to it. The practice is well worth it IMHO. I hope this helps. -- 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] Media server build
Thanks for the info. I will take the Napp-it question off line with Günther and see if i can fix that. Intel Nic sounds like a plan... was thinking of sticking 2 in anyway... just looking at the cards though, they are GigaNIX 2032T and searching for this online results nothing when i include Solaris or OpenSolaris... Pity... finally, i will use the 750 somewhere else, and use 3 500s i have here... should be enough to start with... Tiernan OToole Software Developer Chat Google Talk: lsmart...@gmail.com Skype: tiernanotoole MSN: lotas...@hotmail.com Contact Me Tiernans Comms Closet New Year, New Upgrades… --- @ WiseStamp Signature. Get it now On 31/01/2010 18:43, Günther wrote: hello napp-it is just a simple cgi-script common 3 reasons for error 500: - file permission: just set all files in /napp-it/.. to 777 recursively (rwx for all - napp-it will set them correct at first call) -files must be copied in ascii-mode have you used winscp? ; otherwise you must care about -cgi-bin folder must be allowed to hold executabels is set in apache config file in /etc/apache2/sites/enabled/000-default should be ok per default - missing modules (not a problem in nexenta) please look at apache error log-file at /var/log/apache2/error.log there you will find the reason for this error your nics: i suppose, your other nics are not supported by default you can try to find and install drivers or (better): forget them and buy a intel nic -(about 50 euro, no problem) your hd: if you build a raid 1 or raid-z, the capacity depends on the smallest drive, so your 750 hd is used as 500 gig- gea ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs rpool mirror on non-equal drives
This comment has only to do with booting an old drive on a different computer--a bit of a tangent to this discussion: I've also used this to migrate to a new computer with larger disks. The only caveat I've run into is you need to move from SATA/AHCI to the same, or SATA/IDE to the same. They can be different controllers, but for me they have to match their AHCI mode. I'm sure someone has a method to address that issue. -- 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 rpool mirror on non-equal drives
Richard already addressed this process, but I do this basic concept all the time (moving to a larger disk or new computer). I simply create the partition on the new disk with format, then "zpool attach -f" the larger drive. Once done mirroring, use installgrub as normal. Remove the smaller drive and you're done. You get the new, larger capacity in my experience. I've done this several times without an issue. This is a bit of an abbreviation, but don't overthink it. I've also used this to migrate to a new computer with larger disks. The only caveat I've run into is you need to move from SATA/AHCI to the same, or SATA/IDE to the same. They can be different controllers, but for me they have to match their AHCI mode. I'm sure someone has a method to address that issue. -- 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] Home ZFS NAS - 2 drives or 3?
hello i also suggest, use your 750g drives as raid-1 data pool. i usually use one or better two (raid-1) 2,5" drives in the floppy-bay as system drive gea http://www.napp-it.org/hardware/ -- 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 ZFS resilver time
I have an external disk that was offline yesterday, so today when I booted my system I made sure it was turned on. ZFS of course brought it current with the pool (I have a 3 disk zfs mirror), and for the first time I saw this result for the resilver process: resilver completed after 307445734561825859h50m with 0 errors Note it ends in xx hours and 50 minutes. When I convert the hours portion to octal or binary numbers, just because I'm curious, it reveals some interesting patterns. I have no problem, but I just found this odd. Any ideas what happened? The resilver completed in a matter of minutes--under 10. -- 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] Media server build
hello napp-it is just a simple cgi-script common 3 reasons for error 500: - file permission: just set all files in /napp-it/.. to 777 recursively (rwx for all - napp-it will set them correct at first call) -files must be copied in ascii-mode have you used winscp? ; otherwise you must care about -cgi-bin folder must be allowed to hold executabels is set in apache config file in /etc/apache2/sites/enabled/000-default should be ok per default - missing modules (not a problem in nexenta) please look at apache error log-file at /var/log/apache2/error.log there you will find the reason for this error your nics: i suppose, your other nics are not supported by default you can try to find and install drivers or (better): forget them and buy a intel nic -(about 50 euro, no problem) your hd: if you build a raid 1 or raid-z, the capacity depends on the smallest drive, so your 750 hd is used as 500 gig- gea -- 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 Snapshots
On Jan 31, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Tony MacDoodle wrote: > >> Has anyone encountered any file corruption when snapping ZFS file systems? >> How does ZFS handle open files when compared to other file system types that >> use similar technology ie. Veritas, etc...?? > > I see that Richard did not really answer your question. Yes, there are many cases where applications can get out of sync, as Bob mentions. But from the file system perspective, ZFS snapshots are safe. > > Zfs snapshot captures the exact state of data which is already committed to > disk. Zfs may buffer written data up to 30 seconds before committing it to > disk. Synchronous writes go to disk essentially immediately, and before > returning control back to the application. Also, when you take a snapshot, the txgs will be committed prior to the snap. -- richard > > Since written data may be in an inconsistent state, it is certainly quite > possible for a snapshot to contain "corrupted" data from the perspective of > the application, similar to the way that data may be corrupted after a system > panic or power failure. An application which knows about the snapshot > mechanism can synchronise its data to disk before requesting a snapshot. > > 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 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Snapshots
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Tony MacDoodle wrote: Has anyone encountered any file corruption when snapping ZFS file systems? How does ZFS handle open files when compared to other file system types that use similar technology ie. Veritas, etc...?? I see that Richard did not really answer your question. Zfs snapshot captures the exact state of data which is already committed to disk. Zfs may buffer written data up to 30 seconds before committing it to disk. Synchronous writes go to disk essentially immediately, and before returning control back to the application. Since written data may be in an inconsistent state, it is certainly quite possible for a snapshot to contain "corrupted" data from the perspective of the application, similar to the way that data may be corrupted after a system panic or power failure. An application which knows about the snapshot mechanism can synchronise its data to disk before requesting a snapshot. 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] server hang with compression on, ping timeouts from remote machine
Thanks for your replies. I am aware of the 512 bytes concept, thus my selection of 8 KB (matched with 8KB ntfs). Even 20% reduction is still good, that's like having 20% extra ram (for cache). I haven't experimented with the default lzjb compression. If I want to compress something usually I want it compressed well. Originally I had tried 64 Kb, but then I discovered windows does partial reads and writes (not entire clusters), thus I decided to pick 8K something that fits in 9k jumbo frame. Either way, I think it's very bad for an OS compression to cause your server to not respond to pings (other side affects aside). I am running 117, thus the fix should be in place. Nevertheless it does point out that there could be other things wrong with gzip compression and 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] demise of community edition
Richard Elling wrote: It is not true that there is only a "horrible Gnome based installer." Try the Automated Installation (AI) version instead of the LiveCD if you've used JumpStart previously. But if you just want a text-based installer and AI is overkill, then b131 is available with the Text Installer Project. Downloads available on: http://www.genunix.org http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+caiman/TextInstallerProject Thanks, this looks useful. Nothing is sane about Solaris 10 installer, good riddance :-) It wasn't that bad! :) PS sorry for this being a non specifically ZFS question, but ZFS is the reason I use opensolaris so there's a link in there somewhere. Tom ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] server hang with compression on, ping timeouts from remote machine
On Jan 31, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote: > Hello Christo, > > On Jan 31, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Christo Kutrovsky wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> I am running NTFS over iSCSI on a ZFS ZVOL volume with compression=gzip-9 >> and blocksize=8K. The server is 2 core P4 3.0 Ghz with 5 GB of RAM. For NTFS, use recordsize=4 KB, but I wouldn't worry too much about compression at that recordsize. >> Whenever I start copying files from Windows onto the ZFS disk, after about >> 100-200 Mb been copied the server starts to experience freezes. I have >> iostat running, which freezes as well. Even pings on both of the network >> adapters are reporting either 4000 ms or timeouts for when the freeze is >> happening. >> >> I have reproduce the same behavior with a 1 GB test ZVOL. Whenever I do >> sequential writes of 64 Kb with compression=gzip-9 I experience the freezes. >> With compression=off it's all good. gzip-9 is a pig. b115 includes the fix for: CR6586537 async zio taskqs can block out userland commands which greatly reduced this effect. But you might consider the default gzip-6 instead. Back to my note above, compression is done to records, but the size is still 512 byte sectors. In other words, there are 8 sectors in a 4 KB record, so compression is bounded by 12.5% chunks. >> I've also experienced similar behavior (short freezes) when running zfs >> send|zfs receive with compression on LOCALLY on ZVOLs again. > > I think gzip in ZFS have a reputation being somewhat heavy on system > resources, that said it would be nice if it did not have such a large impact > on low level functions. Have a look in the archive, search for example > death-spriral or Death-spriral revisited. Have you tried using the default > compression algorithm also (lzjb, compresison=on)? Good idea, and for small records compression gains less. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] demise of community edition
This is a topic for indiana-discuss, not zfs-discuss. If you read through the archives of that alias you should see some pointers. On 1/31/2010 11:38 AM, Tom Bird wrote: Afternoon, I note to my dismay that I can't get the "community edition" any more past snv_129, this version was closest to the normal way of doing things that I am used to with Solaris <= 10, the standard OpenSolaris releases seem only to have this horrible Gnome based installer that gives you only one option - install everything. Am I just doing it wrong or is there another way to get OpenSolaris installed in a sane manner other than just sticking with community edition at snv_129? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Snapshots
On Jan 31, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Tony MacDoodle wrote: > Has anyone encountered any file corruption when snapping ZFS file systems? I've had no problems. My first snapshot was in June 2006 and I've been regularly snapshotting since then. > How does ZFS handle open files when compared to other file system types that > use similar technology ie. Veritas, etc...?? VxFS is not at all similar. ZFS is a copy-on-write file system, so a snapshot merely changes the free side of the alloc/free process. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] demise of community edition
On Jan 31, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Tom Bird wrote: > Afternoon, > > I note to my dismay that I can't get the "community edition" any more past > snv_129, this version was closest to the normal way of doing things that I am > used to with Solaris <= 10, the standard OpenSolaris releases seem only to > have this horrible Gnome based installer that gives you only one option - > install everything. It is true that SXCE b130 is the last SXCE build and only available until 31-jan-10. It is not true that there is only a "horrible Gnome based installer." Try the Automated Installation (AI) version instead of the LiveCD if you've used JumpStart previously. But if you just want a text-based installer and AI is overkill, then b131 is available with the Text Installer Project. Downloads available on: http://www.genunix.org http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+caiman/TextInstallerProject It is not true that the LiveCD installer installs everything. It is only ~700 MBytes while SXCE is > 3 GB. The difference is that many things are installed after the initial installation (eg. OpenOffice, adobe reader, etc.) > Am I just doing it wrong or is there another way to get OpenSolaris installed > in a sane manner other than just sticking with community edition at snv_129? Nothing is sane about Solaris 10 installer, good riddance :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] demise of community edition
Afternoon, I note to my dismay that I can't get the "community edition" any more past snv_129, this version was closest to the normal way of doing things that I am used to with Solaris <= 10, the standard OpenSolaris releases seem only to have this horrible Gnome based installer that gives you only one option - install everything. Am I just doing it wrong or is there another way to get OpenSolaris installed in a sane manner other than just sticking with community edition at snv_129? -- Tom // www.portfast.co.uk -- internet services and consultancy // hosting from 1.65 per domain ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ? NFSv4 and ZFS: removing write_owner attribute does not stop a user changing file group ownership
Hi I am accessing files in a ZFS file system via NFSv4. I am not logged in a root. File permissions look as expected when I inspect them with ls -v and ls -V I only have owner and group ACLs...nothing for everyone. bash-3.00$ id uid=100(timt) gid=10001(ccbcadmins) bash-3.00$ groups ccbcadmins staff bash-3.00$ ls -v testacl -rwxrwx---+ 1 timt ccbcadmins 0 Jan 31 16:24 testacl 0:owner@:read_data/write_data/append_data/read_xattr/write_xattr/execute /delete_child/read_attributes/write_attributes/delete/read_acl /write_acl/write_owner/synchronize:allow 1:group@:read_data/write_data/append_data/read_xattr/write_xattr/execute /delete_child/read_attributes/write_attributes/delete/read_acl /write_acl/write_owner/synchronize:allow I can change the group ownership of a file to any group I am a member off, but not to groups I am not a member of - this is as expected. My question is how do I make it so that I CANNOT change group ownership of files that I own I have changed the ACLs on the file so that owner and group do not have write_owner permissions but I can still change the group ownership as before. I have tried removing write_owner from allow permissions and adding a deny ACL which denies write_owner permissions. bash-3.00$ ls -v testacl -rwxrwx---+ 1 timt ccbcadmins 0 Jan 31 16:23 testacl 0:user:timt:write_owner:deny 1:group@:write_owner:deny 2:owner@:write_owner:deny 3:owner@:read_data/write_data/append_data/read_xattr/write_xattr/execute /delete_child/read_attributes/write_attributes/delete/read_acl /write_acl/synchronize:allow 4:group@:read_data/write_data/append_data/read_xattr/write_xattr/execute /delete_child/read_attributes/write_attributes/delete/read_acl /write_acl/synchronize:allow but this makes no difference...I can still change the group ownership. Clearly I am doing something wrong..or have incorrect expectations. Anyone got any ideas on this ? Thanks Tim -- *Tim Thomas Open Storage Technical Specialist Sun Microsystems UK * Mobile: +44 (0)7802-212209 DDI: +44 (0)161 905-8097 Email: tim.tho...@sun.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] server hang with compression on, ping timeouts from remote machine
Hello Christo, On Jan 31, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Christo Kutrovsky wrote: > Hello All, > > I am running NTFS over iSCSI on a ZFS ZVOL volume with compression=gzip-9 and > blocksize=8K. The server is 2 core P4 3.0 Ghz with 5 GB of RAM. > > Whenever I start copying files from Windows onto the ZFS disk, after about > 100-200 Mb been copied the server starts to experience freezes. I have iostat > running, which freezes as well. Even pings on both of the network adapters > are reporting either 4000 ms or timeouts for when the freeze is happening. > > I have reproduce the same behavior with a 1 GB test ZVOL. Whenever I do > sequential writes of 64 Kb with compression=gzip-9 I experience the freezes. > With compression=off it's all good. > > I've also experienced similar behavior (short freezes) when running zfs > send|zfs receive with compression on LOCALLY on ZVOLs again. I think gzip in ZFS have a reputation being somewhat heavy on system resources, that said it would be nice if it did not have such a large impact on low level functions. Have a look in the archive, search for example death-spriral or Death-spriral revisited. Have you tried using the default compression algorithm also (lzjb, compresison=on)? Regards Henrik http://sparcv9.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] server hang with compression on, ping timeouts from remote machine
Hello All, I am running NTFS over iSCSI on a ZFS ZVOL volume with compression=gzip-9 and blocksize=8K. The server is 2 core P4 3.0 Ghz with 5 GB of RAM. Whenever I start copying files from Windows onto the ZFS disk, after about 100-200 Mb been copied the server starts to experience freezes. I have iostat running, which freezes as well. Even pings on both of the network adapters are reporting either 4000 ms or timeouts for when the freeze is happening. I have reproduce the same behavior with a 1 GB test ZVOL. Whenever I do sequential writes of 64 Kb with compression=gzip-9 I experience the freezes. With compression=off it's all good. I've also experienced similar behavior (short freezes) when running zfs send|zfs receive with compression on LOCALLY on ZVOLs again. Has anyone else experienced this ? Know any of bug? This is on snv117. -- 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 Snapshots
Has anyone encountered any file corruption when snapping ZFS file systems? How does ZFS handle open files when compared to other file system types that use similar technology ie. Veritas, etc...?? Thanks ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
