Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal SATA/SAS Controllers for ZFS
The LSI SAS1064E slipped through the cracks when I built the list. This is a 4-port PCIe x8 HBA with very good Solaris (and Linux) support. I don't remember having seen it mentionned on zfs-discuss@ before, even though many were looking for 4-port controllers. Perhaps the fact it is priced too close to 8-port models explains why it is relatively unnoted. That said, the wide x8 PCIe link makes it the *cheapest* controller able to feed 300-350MB/s to at least 4 ports concurrently. Now added to my list. -mrb ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Using WD Green drives?
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 03:12:44PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote: On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 12:54 -0400, Dan Pritts wrote: On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 06:25:18PM +0200, Tomas Ögren wrote: Resilver does a whole lot of random io itself, not bulk reads.. It reads the filesystem tree, not block 0, block 1, block 2... You won't get 60MB/s sustained, not even close. Even with large, unfragmented files? danno -- Dan Pritts, Sr. Systems Engineer Internet2 office: +1-734-352-4953 | mobile: +1-734-834-7224 Having large, unfragmented files will certainly help keep sustained throughput. But, also, you have to consider the amount of deletions done on the pool. For instance, let's say you wrote files A, B, and C one right after another, and they're all big files. Doing a re-silver, you'd be pretty well off on getting reasonable throughput reading A, then B, then C, since they're going to be contiguous on the drive (both internally, and across the three files). However, if you have deleted B at some time, and say wrote a file D (where D B in size) into B's old space, then, well, you seek to A, read A, seek forward to C, read C, seek back to D, etc. Thus, you'll get good throughput for resilver on these drives pretty much in just ONE case: large files with NO deletions. If you're using them for write-once/read-many/no-delete archives, then you're OK. Anything else is going to suck. :-) So basicly if you have a lot of small files with a lot of changes and deletions resilver is going to be really slow. Sounds like the traditional RAID would be better/faster to rebuild in this case.. -- Pasi ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Pool revcovery from replaced disks.
Is it possible to recover a pool (as it was) from a set of disks that were replaced during a capacity upgrade? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Pool revcovery from replaced disks.
wow, that's a truly excelent question. If you COULD do it, it might work with a simple import but i have no idea...i'd love to know myself. On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Demian Phillips demianphill...@gmail.comwrote: Is it possible to recover a pool (as it was) from a set of disks that were replaced during a capacity upgrade? ___ 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] Very serious performance degradation
Hi, I'm running Opensolaris 2009.06, and I'm facing a serious performance loss with ZFS ! It's a raidz1 pool, made of 4 x 1TB SATA disks : zfs_raidONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 In the beginning, when the pool was just created (and empty !), I had the following performances : - Read : 200 MB/s - Write : 20 MB/s (10 MB/s with compression enabled) These performances were OK at this time. However, after 2 months of production use, and a volume of data of 1TB only, the performances are near : - Read : 5 MB/s - Write : 500 KB/s The write speed is so low that is breaks any network copy (Samba or SFTP). The only solution I found to copy large files to the pool without outages is to use SFTP via Filezilla, with the activation of the bandwich limit (limit=300 KB/s) !!! In this pool, I have 18 filesystems defined : - 4 FS have a recordsize of 16KB (with a total of 100 GB of data) - 14 FS have a recordsize of 128KB (with a total of 900GB of data) There is a total of 284 snapshots on the pool, and compression is enabled. There is 3 GB of physical RAM. The usage of the pool is for daily backups, with rsync. Some big files are updated simulteanously, in different FS. So, I suspect a huge fragmentation of the files ! Or maybe..., a need of more RAM ?? Thank you for any thoughts !! Philippe -- 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] Very serious performance degradation
On Tue, 18 May 2010, Philippe wrote: The usage of the pool is for daily backups, with rsync. Some big files are updated simulteanously, in different FS. So, I suspect a huge fragmentation of the files ! Or maybe..., a need of more RAM ?? You forgot to tell us what brand/model of disks you are using, and the controller type. It seems likely that one or more of your disks are barely working from time of initial installation. Even 20 MB/s is quite slow. Use 'iostat -x 30' with an I/O load to see if one disk is much slower than the others. 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] Using WD Green drives?
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 09:40:15AM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: Thus, you'll get good throughput for resilver on these drives pretty much in just ONE case: large files with NO deletions. If you're using them for write-once/read-many/no-delete archives, then you're OK. Anything else is going to suck. thanks for pointing out the obvious. :) Still, though, this is basically true for ANY drive. It's worse for slower RPM drives, but it's not like resilvers will exactly be fast with 7200rpm drives, either. danno -- Dan Pritts, Sr. Systems Engineer Internet2 office: +1-734-352-4953 | mobile: +1-734-834-7224 Visit our website: www.internet2.edu Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/internet2 Become a Fan on Facebook: www.internet2.edu/facebook ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS in campus clusters
I'm building a campus cluster with identical storage in two locations with ZFS mirrors spanning both storage frames. Data will be mirrored using zfs. I'm looking for the best way to add log devices to this campus cluster. I am considering building a separate mirrored zpool of Flash disk that span the frames, then creating zvols to use as log devices for the data zpool. Will this work? Any other suggestions? regards, jmh -- 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 in campus clusters
On 18/05/2010 15:40, John Hoogerdijk wrote: I'm building a campus cluster with identical storage in two locations with ZFS mirrors spanning both storage frames. Data will be mirrored using zfs. I'm looking for the best way to add log devices to this campus cluster. So this is a single pool with one side of the mirror in location A and one side in location B ? Log devices can be mirrored too, so why not just put a log device in each frame and mirror them just like you do the normal pool disks. What am I missing about your setup that means that won't work ? -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation
Hi, The 4 disks are Western Digital ATA 1TB (one is slighlty different) : 1 x ATA-WDC WD10EACS-00D-1A01-931.51GB 3 x ATA-WDC WD10EARS-00Y-0A80-931.51GB I've done lots of tests (speed tests + SMART reports) with each of these 4 disk on another system (another computer, running Windows 2003 x64), and everything was fine ! The 4 disks operate well, at 50-100 MB/s (tested with Hdtune). And the access time : 14ms The controller is an LSI Logic SAS 1068-IR (MPT BIOS 6.12.00.00 - 31/10/2006) Here are some stats : 1) cp of a big file to a ZFS filesystem (128K recordsize) : = iostat -x 30 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.30.3 17.62.3 0.0 0.0 19.5 0 0 sd2 11.56.0 350.1 154.5 0.0 0.3 19.5 0 4 sd3 12.55.7 351.4 154.5 0.0 0.5 27.1 0 5 sd4 15.96.3 615.1 153.8 0.0 1.3 58.2 0 8 sd5 15.18.1 600.4 150.7 0.0 7.6 326.7 0 31 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 41.30.0 5289.70.0 0.0 1.3 31.0 0 4 sd2 4.2 24.1 214.0 1183.0 0.0 0.5 19.4 0 4 sd3 3.7 23.6 227.2 1183.0 0.0 2.1 78.5 0 12 sd4 6.6 26.4 374.2 1179.4 0.0 10.1 306.5 0 35 sd5 4.3 31.0 369.6 973.3 0.0 22.0 622.0 0 96 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 17.10.0 2184.60.0 0.0 0.5 30.6 0 2 sd2 1.6 12.3 116.4 570.9 0.0 0.6 41.3 0 3 sd3 1.6 12.1 107.6 570.9 0.0 10.3 754.7 0 33 sd4 2.1 12.6 187.1 569.4 0.0 9.4 634.7 0 28 sd5 0.4 21.7 25.6 700.6 0.0 29.5 1338.1 0 96 2) cp of a big file to a ZFS filesystem (16K recordsize) : = iostat -x 30 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.20.3 16.72.3 0.0 0.0 19.3 0 0 sd2 11.56.0 350.7 154.5 0.0 0.3 19.5 0 4 sd3 12.55.7 352.0 154.5 0.0 0.5 27.0 0 5 sd4 15.96.3 616.2 153.8 0.0 1.3 58.0 0 8 sd5 15.18.1 601.3 150.7 0.0 7.5 324.6 0 31 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 32.00.0 4095.90.0 0.0 1.0 30.8 0 3 sd2 2.0 22.4 124.2 425.0 0.0 0.12.3 0 2 sd3 1.9 19.4 115.9 425.0 0.0 0.6 28.7 0 14 sd4 2.3 23.6 170.9 421.8 0.0 3.2 124.7 0 15 sd5 3.2 24.5 290.6 306.6 0.0 22.5 810.5 0 94 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd2 0.02.00.03.0 0.0 0.00.7 0 0 sd3 0.11.14.32.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0 1 sd4 0.11.44.31.9 0.0 0.02.9 0 0 sd5 0.2 19.8 10.7 101.8 0.0 32.1 1606.9 0 100 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 8.60.0 1096.20.0 0.0 0.3 29.7 0 1 sd2 0.24.8 10.7 267.2 0.0 0.07.8 0 0 sd3 0.25.56.8 268.2 0.0 0.6 107.0 0 3 sd4 0.29.1 11.0 265.4 0.0 6.3 678.4 0 21 sd5 0.2 21.46.8 104.5 0.0 31.6 1467.8 0 92 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd2 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd3 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd4 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd5 0.0 18.90.0 101.7 0.0 35.0 1851.6 0 100 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd2 0.35.9 15.3 279.2 0.0 0.06.7 0 1 sd3 0.45.7 23.5 279.2 0.0 1.0 161.5 0 5 sd4 0.4 11.6 23.8 275.6 0.0 11.6 964.3 0 36 sd5 0.2 20.6 13.1 107.2 0.0 30.2 1452.7 0 99 extended
Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation
Howdy, Is dedup on? I was having some pretty strange problems including slow performance when dedup was on. Disabling dedup helped out a whole bunch. My system only has 4gig of ram, so that may have played a part too. Good luck! John On May 18, 2010, at 7:51 AM, Philippe wrote: Hi, The 4 disks are Western Digital ATA 1TB (one is slighlty different) : 1 x ATA-WDC WD10EACS-00D-1A01-931.51GB 3 x ATA-WDC WD10EARS-00Y-0A80-931.51GB I've done lots of tests (speed tests + SMART reports) with each of these 4 disk on another system (another computer, running Windows 2003 x64), and everything was fine ! The 4 disks operate well, at 50-100 MB/s (tested with Hdtune). And the access time : 14ms The controller is an LSI Logic SAS 1068-IR (MPT BIOS 6.12.00.00 - 31/10/2006) Here are some stats : 1) cp of a big file to a ZFS filesystem (128K recordsize) : = iostat -x 30 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.30.3 17.62.3 0.0 0.0 19.5 0 0 sd2 11.56.0 350.1 154.5 0.0 0.3 19.5 0 4 sd3 12.55.7 351.4 154.5 0.0 0.5 27.1 0 5 sd4 15.96.3 615.1 153.8 0.0 1.3 58.2 0 8 sd5 15.18.1 600.4 150.7 0.0 7.6 326.7 0 31 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 41.30.0 5289.70.0 0.0 1.3 31.0 0 4 sd2 4.2 24.1 214.0 1183.0 0.0 0.5 19.4 0 4 sd3 3.7 23.6 227.2 1183.0 0.0 2.1 78.5 0 12 sd4 6.6 26.4 374.2 1179.4 0.0 10.1 306.5 0 35 sd5 4.3 31.0 369.6 973.3 0.0 22.0 622.0 0 96 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 17.10.0 2184.60.0 0.0 0.5 30.6 0 2 sd2 1.6 12.3 116.4 570.9 0.0 0.6 41.3 0 3 sd3 1.6 12.1 107.6 570.9 0.0 10.3 754.7 0 33 sd4 2.1 12.6 187.1 569.4 0.0 9.4 634.7 0 28 sd5 0.4 21.7 25.6 700.6 0.0 29.5 1338.1 0 96 2) cp of a big file to a ZFS filesystem (16K recordsize) : = iostat -x 30 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.20.3 16.72.3 0.0 0.0 19.3 0 0 sd2 11.56.0 350.7 154.5 0.0 0.3 19.5 0 4 sd3 12.55.7 352.0 154.5 0.0 0.5 27.0 0 5 sd4 15.96.3 616.2 153.8 0.0 1.3 58.0 0 8 sd5 15.18.1 601.3 150.7 0.0 7.5 324.6 0 31 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 32.00.0 4095.90.0 0.0 1.0 30.8 0 3 sd2 2.0 22.4 124.2 425.0 0.0 0.12.3 0 2 sd3 1.9 19.4 115.9 425.0 0.0 0.6 28.7 0 14 sd4 2.3 23.6 170.9 421.8 0.0 3.2 124.7 0 15 sd5 3.2 24.5 290.6 306.6 0.0 22.5 810.5 0 94 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd2 0.02.00.03.0 0.0 0.00.7 0 0 sd3 0.11.14.32.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0 1 sd4 0.11.44.31.9 0.0 0.02.9 0 0 sd5 0.2 19.8 10.7 101.8 0.0 32.1 1606.9 0 100 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 8.60.0 1096.20.0 0.0 0.3 29.7 0 1 sd2 0.24.8 10.7 267.2 0.0 0.07.8 0 0 sd3 0.25.56.8 268.2 0.0 0.6 107.0 0 3 sd4 0.29.1 11.0 265.4 0.0 6.3 678.4 0 21 sd5 0.2 21.46.8 104.5 0.0 31.6 1467.8 0 92 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd2 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd3 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd4 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd5 0.0 18.90.0 101.7 0.0 35.0 1851.6 0 100 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.0
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in campus clusters
On 18/05/2010 15:40, John Hoogerdijk wrote: I'm building a campus cluster with identical storage in two locations with ZFS mirrors spanning both storage frames. Data will be mirrored using zfs. I'm looking for the best way to add log devices to this campus cluster. So this is a single pool with one side of the mirror in location A and one side in location B ? Log devices can be mirrored too, so why not just put a log device in each frame and mirror them just like you do the normal pool disks. What am I missing about your setup that means that won't work ? Yes - mirrored log devices will work. I want to share the Flash devices with more than one clustered zone/zpool (should have stated this earlier ...) hence the use of zvols. jmh -- 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] Very serious performance degradation
On 18 May, 2010 - Philippe sent me these 6,0K bytes:
Hi,
The 4 disks are Western Digital ATA 1TB (one is slighlty different) :
1 x ATA-WDC WD10EACS-00D-1A01-931.51GB
3 x ATA-WDC WD10EARS-00Y-0A80-931.51GB
I've done lots of tests (speed tests + SMART reports) with each of these 4
disk on another system (another computer, running Windows 2003 x64), and
everything was fine ! The 4 disks operate well, at 50-100 MB/s (tested with
Hdtune). And the access time : 14ms
The controller is an LSI Logic SAS 1068-IR (MPT BIOS 6.12.00.00 - 31/10/2006)
Here are some stats :
1) cp of a big file to a ZFS filesystem (128K recordsize) :
=
iostat -x 30
extended device statistics
devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b
sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0
sd1 0.30.3 17.62.3 0.0 0.0 19.5 0 0
sd2 11.56.0 350.1 154.5 0.0 0.3 19.5 0 4
sd3 12.55.7 351.4 154.5 0.0 0.5 27.1 0 5
sd4 15.96.3 615.1 153.8 0.0 1.3 58.2 0 8
sd5 15.18.1 600.4 150.7 0.0 7.6 326.7 0 31
extended device statistics
devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b
sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0
sd1 41.30.0 5289.70.0 0.0 1.3 31.0 0 4
sd2 4.2 24.1 214.0 1183.0 0.0 0.5 19.4 0 4
sd3 3.7 23.6 227.2 1183.0 0.0 2.1 78.5 0 12
sd4 6.6 26.4 374.2 1179.4 0.0 10.1 306.5 0 35
sd5 4.3 31.0 369.6 973.3 0.0 22.0 622.0 0 96
extended device statistics
devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b
sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0
sd1 17.10.0 2184.60.0 0.0 0.5 30.6 0 2
sd2 1.6 12.3 116.4 570.9 0.0 0.6 41.3 0 3
sd3 1.6 12.1 107.6 570.9 0.0 10.3 754.7 0 33
sd4 2.1 12.6 187.1 569.4 0.0 9.4 634.7 0 28
sd5 0.4 21.7 25.6 700.6 0.0 29.5 1338.1 0 96
Umm.. Service time of sd3..5 are waay too high to be good working disks.
21 writes shouldn't take 1.3 seconds.
Some of your disks are not feeling well, possibly doing
block-reallocation like mad all the time, or block recovery of some
form. Service times should be closer to what sd1 and 2 are doing.
sd2,3,4 seems to be getting about the same amount of read+write, but
their service time is 15-20 times higher. This will lead to crap
performance (and probably broken array in a while).
/Tomas
--
Tomas Ögren, st...@acc.umu.se, http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {cs,acc}.umu.se
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation
I note in your iostat data below that one drive (sd5) consistently performs MUCH worse than the others, even when doing less work. -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of John J Balestrini Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:11 AM To: OpenSolaris ZFS discuss Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation Howdy, Is dedup on? I was having some pretty strange problems including slow performance when dedup was on. Disabling dedup helped out a whole bunch. My system only has 4gig of ram, so that may have played a part too. Good luck! John On May 18, 2010, at 7:51 AM, Philippe wrote: Hi, The 4 disks are Western Digital ATA 1TB (one is slighlty different) : 1 x ATA-WDC WD10EACS-00D-1A01-931.51GB 3 x ATA-WDC WD10EARS-00Y-0A80-931.51GB I've done lots of tests (speed tests + SMART reports) with each of these 4 disk on another system (another computer, running Windows 2003 x64), and everything was fine ! The 4 disks operate well, at 50-100 MB/s (tested with Hdtune). And the access time : 14ms The controller is an LSI Logic SAS 1068-IR (MPT BIOS 6.12.00.00 - 31/10/2006) Here are some stats : 1) cp of a big file to a ZFS filesystem (128K recordsize) : = iostat -x 30 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.30.3 17.62.3 0.0 0.0 19.5 0 0 sd2 11.56.0 350.1 154.5 0.0 0.3 19.5 0 4 sd3 12.55.7 351.4 154.5 0.0 0.5 27.1 0 5 sd4 15.96.3 615.1 153.8 0.0 1.3 58.2 0 8 sd5 15.18.1 600.4 150.7 0.0 7.6 326.7 0 31 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 41.30.0 5289.70.0 0.0 1.3 31.0 0 4 sd2 4.2 24.1 214.0 1183.0 0.0 0.5 19.4 0 4 sd3 3.7 23.6 227.2 1183.0 0.0 2.1 78.5 0 12 sd4 6.6 26.4 374.2 1179.4 0.0 10.1 306.5 0 35 sd5 4.3 31.0 369.6 973.3 0.0 22.0 622.0 0 96 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 17.10.0 2184.60.0 0.0 0.5 30.6 0 2 sd2 1.6 12.3 116.4 570.9 0.0 0.6 41.3 0 3 sd3 1.6 12.1 107.6 570.9 0.0 10.3 754.7 0 33 sd4 2.1 12.6 187.1 569.4 0.0 9.4 634.7 0 28 sd5 0.4 21.7 25.6 700.6 0.0 29.5 1338.1 0 96 2) cp of a big file to a ZFS filesystem (16K recordsize) : = iostat -x 30 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.20.3 16.72.3 0.0 0.0 19.3 0 0 sd2 11.56.0 350.7 154.5 0.0 0.3 19.5 0 4 sd3 12.55.7 352.0 154.5 0.0 0.5 27.0 0 5 sd4 15.96.3 616.2 153.8 0.0 1.3 58.0 0 8 sd5 15.18.1 601.3 150.7 0.0 7.5 324.6 0 31 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 32.00.0 4095.90.0 0.0 1.0 30.8 0 3 sd2 2.0 22.4 124.2 425.0 0.0 0.12.3 0 2 sd3 1.9 19.4 115.9 425.0 0.0 0.6 28.7 0 14 sd4 2.3 23.6 170.9 421.8 0.0 3.2 124.7 0 15 sd5 3.2 24.5 290.6 306.6 0.0 22.5 810.5 0 94 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd2 0.02.00.03.0 0.0 0.00.7 0 0 sd3 0.11.14.32.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 0 1 sd4 0.11.44.31.9 0.0 0.02.9 0 0 sd5 0.2 19.8 10.7 101.8 0.0 32.1 1606.9 0 100 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 8.60.0 1096.20.0 0.0 0.3 29.7 0 1 sd2 0.24.8 10.7 267.2 0.0 0.07.8 0 0 sd3 0.25.56.8 268.2 0.0 0.6 107.0 0 3 sd4 0.29.1 11.0 265.4 0.0 6.3 678.4 0 21 sd5 0.2 21.46.8 104.5 0.0 31.6 1467.8 0 92 extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 0.00.0
Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation
On Tue, 18 May 2010, Philippe wrote: The 4 disks are Western Digital ATA 1TB (one is slighlty different) : 1 x ATA-WDC WD10EACS-00D-1A01-931.51GB 3 x ATA-WDC WD10EARS-00Y-0A80-931.51GB I've done lots of tests (speed tests + SMART reports) with each of these 4 disk on another system (another computer, running Windows 2003 x64), and everything was fine ! The 4 disks operate well, at 50-100 MB/s (tested with Hdtune). And the access time : 14ms The controller is an LSI Logic SAS 1068-IR (MPT BIOS 6.12.00.00 - 31/10/2006) Here are some stats : extended device statistics devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b sd0 0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 0 0 sd1 8.60.0 1096.20.0 0.0 0.3 29.7 0 1 sd2 0.24.8 10.7 267.2 0.0 0.07.8 0 0 sd3 0.25.56.8 268.2 0.0 0.6 107.0 0 3 sd4 0.29.1 11.0 265.4 0.0 6.3 678.4 0 21 sd5 0.2 21.46.8 104.5 0.0 31.6 1467.8 0 92 It looks like your 'sd5' disk is performing horribly bad and except for the horrible performance of 'sd5' (which bottlenecks the I/O), 'sd4' would look just as bad. Regardless, the first step would be to investigate 'sd5'. If 'sd4' is also a terrible performer, then resilvering a disk replacement of 'sd5' may take a very long time. Use 'iostat -xen' to obtain more information, including the number of reported errors. 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] Ideal SATA/SAS Controllers for ZFS
Nice write-up, Marc. Aren't the SuperMicro cards their funny UIO form factor? Wouldn't want someone buying a card that won't work in a standard chassis. -marc On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Marc Bevand m.bev...@gmail.com wrote: The LSI SAS1064E slipped through the cracks when I built the list. This is a 4-port PCIe x8 HBA with very good Solaris (and Linux) support. I don't remember having seen it mentionned on zfs-discuss@ before, even though many were looking for 4-port controllers. Perhaps the fact it is priced too close to 8-port models explains why it is relatively unnoted. That said, the wide x8 PCIe link makes it the *cheapest* controller able to feed 300-350MB/s to at least 4 ports concurrently. Now added to my list. -mrb ___ 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] Ideal SATA/SAS Controllers for ZFS
Marc Nicholas geekything at gmail.com writes: Nice write-up, Marc.Aren't the SuperMicro cards their funny UIO form factor? Wouldn't want someone buying a card that won't work in a standard chassis. Yes, 4 or the 6 Supermicro cards are UIO cards. I added a warning about it. Thanks. -mrb ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal SATA/SAS Controllers for ZFS
A really great alternative to the UIO cards for those who don't want the headache of modifying the brackets or cases is the Intel SASUC8I * * * * *This is a rebranded LSI SAS3081E-R* * * *It can be flashed with the LSI IT firmware from the LSI website and is physically identical to the LSI card. It is really the exact same card, and typically around 140-160 dollars.* * * *These are what i went with.* * * On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Marc Bevand m.bev...@gmail.com wrote: Marc Nicholas geekything at gmail.com writes: Nice write-up, Marc.Aren't the SuperMicro cards their funny UIO form factor? Wouldn't want someone buying a card that won't work in a standard chassis. Yes, 4 or the 6 Supermicro cards are UIO cards. I added a warning about it. Thanks. -mrb ___ 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] spares bug: explain to me status of bug report.
Hi. In bugster i found bug about spares. I can to reproduce the problem. but developer set status Not a defect. Why? http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6905317 Thanks. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] spares bug: explain to me status of bug report.
Hi-- The scenario in the bug report below is that the pool is exported. The spare can't kick in if the pool is exported. It looks like the issue reported in this CR's See Also section, CR 6887163 is still open. Thanks, Cindy On 05/18/10 11:19, eXeC001er wrote: Hi. In bugster i found bug about spares. I can to reproduce the problem. but developer set status Not a defect. Why? http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6905317 Thanks. ___ 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] spares bug: explain to me status of bug report.
6887163 /bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6887163 11-Closed:Duplicate (Closed) 6945634 /bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6945634 11-Closed:Duplicate (Closed) 2010/5/18 Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@oracle.com Hi-- The scenario in the bug report below is that the pool is exported. The spare can't kick in if the pool is exported. It looks like the issue reported in this CR's See Also section, CR 6887163 is still open. Thanks, Cindy On 05/18/10 11:19, eXeC001er wrote: Hi. In bugster i found bug about spares. I can to reproduce the problem. but developer set status Not a defect. Why? http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6905317 Thanks. ___ 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] spares bug: explain to me status of bug report.
I think the remaining CR is this one: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6911420 cs On 05/18/10 12:08, eXeC001er wrote: 6887163 /bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6887163 11-Closed:Duplicate (Closed) 6945634 /bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6945634 11-Closed:Duplicate (Closed) 2010/5/18 Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@oracle.com mailto:cindy.swearin...@oracle.com Hi-- The scenario in the bug report below is that the pool is exported. The spare can't kick in if the pool is exported. It looks like the issue reported in this CR's See Also section, CR 6887163 is still open. Thanks, Cindy On 05/18/10 11:19, eXeC001er wrote: Hi. In bugster i found bug about spares. I can to reproduce the problem. but developer set status Not a defect. Why? http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6905317 Thanks. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org mailto: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] Ideal SATA/SAS Controllers for ZFS
Thomas Burgess wonslung at gmail.com writes: A really great alternative to the UIO cards for those who don't want the headache of modifying the brackets or cases is the Intel SASUC8I This is a rebranded LSI SAS3081E-R It can be flashed with the LSI IT firmware from the LSI website and is physically identical to the LSI card. It is really the exact same card, and typically around 140-160 dollars. The SASUC8I is already in my list. In fact I bought one last week. I did not need to flash its firmware though - drives were used in JBOD mode by default. -mrb ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Is dedupe ready for prime time?
I've been reading this list for a while, there's lots of discussion about b134 and deduplication. I see some stuff about snapshots not being destroyed, and maybe some recovery issues. What I'd like to know is, is ZFS with deduplication stable enough to use? I have two NFS servers, each running OpenSolaris 2009.06 (111b), as datastores for VMWare ESX hosts. It works great right now, with ZIL offload and L2ARC SSDs. I still get occasional complaints from developers saying the storage is slow - which I'm guessing is that read latency is not stellar on a shared storage. Write latency is probably not an issue due to the ZIL offload. I'm guessing deduplication would solve a lot of this read latency problem, having to do fewer read IOs. But is it stable? Can I do nightly recursive snapshots and periodically destroy old snapshots without worrying about a dozen VMs suddenly losing their datastore? I'd love to hear from your experience. Thanks, -Paul Choi ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Is dedupe ready for prime time?
- Paul Choi paulc...@plaxo.com skrev: I've been reading this list for a while, there's lots of discussion about b134 and deduplication. I see some stuff about snapshots not being destroyed, and maybe some recovery issues. What I'd like to know is, is ZFS with deduplication stable enough to use? No, currently ZFS dedup is not ready for production. There are several bugs are filed, and the most problematic ones are that the system can be rendered unusable for days in some situations. Also, if using dedup, plan well your memory and spend money on l2arc, since it _will_ require either massive amounts of RAM or some good SSDs for l2arc. Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hashing files rapidly on ZFS
Thanks Dan, this is exactly what I had in mind (hashing the block checksums). You convinced me to do it independently from 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] Is dedupe ready for prime time?
Roy, Thanks for the info. Yeah, the bug you mentioned is pretty critical. In terms of SSDs, I have Intel X25-M for L2ARC and X25-E for ZIL. And the host has 24G RAM. I'm just waiting for that 2010.03 release or whatever we want to call it when it's released... -Paul On 5/18/10 12:49 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: - Paul Choipaulc...@plaxo.com skrev: I've been reading this list for a while, there's lots of discussion about b134 and deduplication. I see some stuff about snapshots not being destroyed, and maybe some recovery issues. What I'd like to know is, is ZFS with deduplication stable enough to use? No, currently ZFS dedup is not ready for production. There are several bugs are filed, and the most problematic ones are that the system can be rendered unusable for days in some situations. Also, if using dedup, plan well your memory and spend money on l2arc, since it _will_ require either massive amounts of RAM or some good SSDs for l2arc. Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ 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] Is dedupe ready for prime time?
- Paul Choi paulc...@plaxo.com skrev: Roy, Thanks for the info. Yeah, the bug you mentioned is pretty critical. In terms of SSDs, I have Intel X25-M for L2ARC and X25-E for ZIL. And the host has 24G RAM. I'm just waiting for that 2010.03 release or whatever we want to call it when it's released... IIRC the memory requirements for dedup is something like 150 bytes per block for the DDT, meaning about 1GB per 1TB space if it's all 128kB blocks. With smaller blocks, osol gets greedy. Zil is good for write performance, but remember, osol won't use more than top half of memory size for zil, so you can probably slice it up and use the rest for l2arc. Vennlige hilsener roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Pool revcovery from replaced disks.
On 2010-May-18 19:06:11 +0800, Demian Phillips demianphill...@gmail.com wrote: Is it possible to recover a pool (as it was) from a set of disks that were replaced during a capacity upgrade? If no other writes occurred during the capacity upgrade then I'd suspect it would be possible. The transaction numbers would still vary across the drives and the pool information would be inconsistent but I suspect a recent version of ZFS could manage to recover. It might be possible to test this by creating a small, file-backed RAIDZn zpool, simulating a capacity upgrade, exporting that pool and trying to import the original zpool from the detached files. -- Peter Jeremy pgp5OU8Gba0CI.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] New SSD options
I'm looking for alternatives SSD options to the Intel X25-E and the ZEUS IOPS. The ZEUS IOPS would probably cost as much as my entire current disk system (80 15k SAS drives)- and that's just silly. The Intel is much less expensive, and while fast- pales in comparison to the ZEUS. I've allocated 4 disk slots in my array for ZIL SSD's and I'm trying to find the best performance for my dollar. With that in mind- Is anyone using the new OCZ Vertex 2 SSD's as a ZIL? http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid-state-drives/2-5--sata-ii/performance-enterprise-solid-state-drives/ocz-vertex-2-sata-ii-2-5--ssd.html They're claiming 50k IOPS (4k Write- Aligned), 2 million hour MTBF, TRIM support, etc. That's more write IOPS than the ZEUS (40k IOPS, $) but at half the price of an Intel X25-E (3.3k IOPS, $400). Needless to say I'd love to know if anyone has evaluated these drives to see if they make sense as a ZIL- for example- do they honor cache flush requests? Are those sustained IOPS numbers? -- 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 in campus clusters
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of John Hoogerdijk I'm building a campus cluster with identical storage in two locations with ZFS mirrors spanning both storage frames. Data will be mirrored using zfs. I'm looking for the best way to add log devices to this campus cluster. Either I'm crazy, or I completely miss what you're asking. You want to have one side of a mirror attached locally, and the other side of the mirror attached ... via iscsi or something ... across the WAN? Even if you have a really fast WAN (1Gb or so) your performance is going to be terrible, and I would be very concerned about reliability. What happens if a switch reboots or crashes? Then suddenly half of the mirror isn't available anymore (redundancy is degraded on all pairs) and ... Will it be a degraded mirror? Or will the system just hang, waiting for iscsi IO to timeout? When it comes back online, will it intelligently resilver only the parts which have changed since? Since the mirror is now broken, and local operations can happen faster than the WAN can carry them across, will the resilver ever complete, ever? I don't know. anyway, it just doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It sounds like something that was meant for a clustering filesystem of some kind, not particularly for ZFS. If you are adding log devices to this, I have a couple of things to say: The whole point of a log device is to accelerate sync writes, by providing nonvolatile storage which is faster than the primary storage. You're not going to get this if any part of the log device is at the other side of a WAN. So either add a mirror of log devices locally and not across the WAN, or don't do it at all. I am considering building a separate mirrored zpool of Flash disk that span the frames, then creating zvols to use as log devices for the data zpool. Will this work? Any other suggestions? This also sounds nonsensical to me. If your primary pool devices are Flash, then there's no point to add separate log devices. Unless you have another type of even faster nonvolatile storage. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation
How full is your filesystem? Give us the output of zfs list You might be having a hardware problem, or maybe it's extremely full. Also, if you have dedup enabled, on a 3TB filesystem, you surely want more RAM. I don't know if there's any rule of thumb you could follow, but offhand I'd say 16G or 32G. Numbers based on the vapor passing around the room I'm in right now. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] scsi messages and mpt warning in log - harmless, or indicating a problem?
This afternoon, messages like the following started appearing in /var/adm/messages: May 18 13:46:37 fs8 scsi: [ID 365881 kern.info] /p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1/pci15d9,a...@0 (mpt0): May 18 13:46:37 fs8 Log info 0x3108 received for target 5. May 18 13:46:37 fs8 scsi_status=0x0, ioc_status=0x804b, scsi_state=0x1 May 18 13:46:38 fs8 scsi: [ID 365881 kern.info] /p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1/pci15d9,a...@0 (mpt0): May 18 13:46:38 fs8 Log info 0x3108 received for target 5. May 18 13:46:38 fs8 scsi_status=0x0, ioc_status=0x804b, scsi_state=0x0 May 18 13:46:40 fs8 scsi: [ID 365881 kern.info] /p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1/pci15d9,a...@0 (mpt0): May 18 13:46:40 fs8 Log info 0x3108 received for target 5. May 18 13:46:40 fs8 scsi_status=0x0, ioc_status=0x804b, scsi_state=0x0 The pool has no errors, so I don't know if these represent a potential problem or not. During this time I was copying files from one fileset to another in the same pool, so it was fairly I/O intensive. Typically you get one every 1-5 seconds for 10 to 20 seconds, sometimes longer, and then it is quiet for many minutes before they occur again. Is this indicating a problem, or just a harmless message? I just kicked off a scrub on the pool as I was writing this, and I am seeing a lot of these messages. I see that zpool status shows c4t5d0 has 12.5K repaired already. The scrub has been in progress for just 6 minutes, and it says I have 170629h54m to go, and it gets longer every time I check the status. I ran a scrub on this a few weeks ago, and had no such problem. I also see two warnings earlier today: May 18 19:14:09 fs8 scsi: [ID 243001 kern.warning] WARNING: /p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1/pci15d9,a...@0 (mpt0): May 18 19:14:09 fs8 mpt_handle_event_sync: IOCStatus=0x8000, IOCLogInfo=0x31110900 May 18 19:14:09 fs8 scsi: [ID 243001 kern.warning] WARNING: /p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1/pci15d9,a...@0 (mpt0): May 18 19:14:09 fs8 mpt_handle_event: IOCStatus=0x8000, IOCLogInfo=0x31110900 and two more of these 1 minute and 10 seconds later. So, is my system in trouble or not? Particulars of my system: % uname -a SunOS fs8 5.11 snv_134 i86pc i386 i86pc The hardware is an Asus server motherboard carrying 4GB of ECC memory and a current Xeon CPU, and a SuperMicro AOC-USASLP-L8I card (it uses the 1068E) with 8 Samsung Spinpoint F3EG HD203WI 2TB disks attached. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zhist good enough for usage
The purpose of zhist is to simplify access to past snapshots. For example, if you zhist ls somefile then the results will be: A list of all the previous snapshot versions of that file or directory. No need to find the right .zfs directory, or check to see which ones have changed. Some reasonable steps (stat) are taken inside this zhist, to identify the previous snaps, and to identify unique snaps of the requested object. There is a long way still remaining to go. But this is a 90/10 rule. The first good enough for usage version is available, and that's what most people would care about. You can get the present release as follows: svn export https://zhist.googlecode.com/svn/tags/0.6beta sudo chown root:root 0.6beta/zhist sudo chmod 755 0.6beta/zhist (optionally, edit the first line of 0.6beta/zhist to match your environment's preferred python location) sudo mv 0.6beta/zhist /usr/local/bin ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
