Re: [zfs-discuss] latest zpool version in solaris 11 express

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Maurice R Volaski
>  
> You need to point to the support repository and install a certificate.
> 
> /usr/bin/pkg set-publisher -k
> /var/pkg/ssl/Oracle_Solaris_11_Express_Support.key.pem \
> -c /var/pkg/ssl/Oracle_Solaris_11_Express_Support.certificate.pem \
> -O https://pkg.oracle.com/solaris/support/ solaris
> 
> You get the certificate from https://pkg-register.oracle.com/help/

Intuitive.   ;-)
Thank you.

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Pure SSD Pool

[Eric D. Mudama]

On Tue, Jul 12 at 23:44, Jim Klimov wrote:

2011-07-12 23:14, Eric Sproul пишет:
So finding drives that keep more space in reserve is key to getting 
consistent performance under ZFS.

I think I've read in a number of early SSD reviews
(possibly regarding Intel devices - not certain now)
that the vendor provided some low-level formatting
tools which essentially allowed the user to tune how
much flash would be useable and how much would
be set aside as the reserve...

Perhaps this rumour is worth an exploration too -
do any modern SSDs have similar tools to switch
them between capacity and performance modes,
or such?


It doesn't require special tools, just partition the device.

Since ZFS will stay within a partition boundary if told to, that
should allow you to guarantee a certain minimum reserve area available
for other purposes.

e.g. Take a 100GB drive and partition it to 80GB.  Assuming the
original drive was a 100GB/100GiB design, you now have (100*0.07)+20
GB of spare area, which depending on the design, may significantly
lower write amplification and thus increase performance on a device
that is "full."

--eric


--
Eric D. Mudama
edmud...@bounceswoosh.org

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zil on multiple usb keys

[Jim Klimov]

2011-07-16 20:42, Edward Ned Harvey пишет:

From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov

Well, in terms of mirroring over stripes, if any component of any
stripe
breaks,
the whole half of the mirror is degraded. If another drive from another
half
also breaks, you're in trouble.

There's no such thing in ZFS.  You have a series of mirrors in the pool, and
if one side of one mirror breaks, no big deal.  If another side of another
mirror breaks, no big deal.  The only problem is when you lose both sides of
a single mirror.

Now please, nobody say this is either raid10 or raid01.  Because it's
neither one.


Well, I do stand corrected in case of a standard ZFS layout
which would automatically make the zfs-striping over mirrors
of identical disks and not vice-versa.

As a lame defense for myself, I can say that the dangers
described apply to the case that, if the OP were so inclined,
he could craft a couple of "striped" pools (300+500) and
then make a ZFS pool over these two. But yes, it would
take some effort and determination to make such an ugly
construct in the first place ;)

//Jim

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] latest zpool version in solaris 11 express

[Maurice R Volaski]

>>It says zpool version 31 and zfs version 5.  Can anybody please confirm
>>or
>deny that this is the absolute latest version available to the public in
>any
>way?  

It's the latest on my copy.

>
> 
>
>I have a support contract, but there doesn't seem to be any updates
>available, which doesn't seem right considering this was released 8 months
>ago... Nor did it prompt me to enter any login information of any kind.
>That's why I have uncertainty about whether or not I'm doing something
>wrong, and whether or not it's truly fully updated.  (BTW, yes I created a
>support request, but because it's sev-3, I can't expect a response till
>Monday or Tuesday.)

There have been several package updates. Unfortunately, it doesn't change
the snv number, so just by looking at it, there is no way to know really
which version you have. But internally they are making builds with higher
numbers. 

You need to point to the support repository and install a certificate.

/usr/bin/pkg set-publisher -k
/var/pkg/ssl/Oracle_Solaris_11_Express_Support.key.pem \
-c /var/pkg/ssl/Oracle_Solaris_11_Express_Support.certificate.pem \
-O https://pkg.oracle.com/solaris/support/ solaris

You get the certificate from https://pkg-register.oracle.com/help/
 




___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS acl inherit problem

[Sigbjorn Lie]

Hi,

Set the zfs properties aclmode *and* aclinherit properties to 
passthrough for the dataset you're writing to.


This works for me having both Windows clients using cifs, and Linux 
clients using nfs.




Regards,
Siggi





On 06/01/2011 08:51 AM, lance wilson wrote:

The problem is that nfs clients that connect to my solaris 11 express server 
are not inheriting the acl's that are set for the share. They create files that 
don't have any acl assigned to them, just the normal unix file permissions. Can 
someone please provide some additional things to test so that I can get this 
sorted out.

This is the output of a normal ls -al

drwxrwxrwx+ 5 root root 11 2011-05-31 11:14 acltest

Looking at the acl's that are assigned to the share with ls -vd

drwxrwxrwx+ 5 root root 11 May 31 11:14 /smallstore/acltest
0:user:root:list_directory/read_data/add_file/write_data
/add_subdirectory/append_data/read_xattr/write_xattr/execute
/delete_child/read_attributes/write_attributes/delete/read_acl
/write_acl/write_owner/synchronize:file_inherit/dir_inherit:allow
1:everyone@:list_directory/read_data/add_file/write_data
/add_subdirectory/append_data/read_xattr/write_xattr/execute
/delete_child/read_attributes/write_attributes/delete/read_acl
/synchronize:file_inherit/dir_inherit:allow

The compact version is ls -Vd

drwxrwxrwx+ 5 root root 11 May 31 11:14 /smallstore/acltest
user:root:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-:allow
everyone@:rwxpdDaARWc--s:fd-:allow

The parent share has the following permissions
drwxr-xr-x+ 5 root root 5 May 30 22:26 /smallstore/
user:root:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-:allow
everyone@:r-x---a-R-c---:fd-:allow
owner@:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-:allow

This is the acl for the files created by a ubuntu client. There is no acl 
inheritance occurring.

-rw-r--r-- 1 1000 1000 0 May 31 22:20 /smallstore/acltest/ubuntu_file
owner@:rw-p--aARWcCos:---:allow
group@:r-a-R-c--s:---:allow
everyone@:r-a-R-c--s:---:allow

This is the acl for files created by a user from a windows client. There is 
full acl inheritance.
-rwxrwxrwx+ 1 ljw staff 0 May 31 22:22 /smallstore/acltest/windows_file
user:root:rwxpdDaARWcCos:--I:allow
everyone@:rwxpdDaARWc--s:--I:allow

The acl inheritance is on at both the share and directory levels so it should 
be passing them to files that are created.

smallstore aclinherit restricted default
smallstore/acltest aclinherit passthrough local

Again any help would be most appreciated.


___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] latest zpool version in solaris 11 express

[Edward Ned Harvey]

I recently installed a system, but it seems like the system update process
isn't working right, or else I have wrong expectations.  What I really want
is to ensure I have the latest...

 

It says zpool version 31 and zfs version 5.  Can anybody please confirm or
deny that this is the absolute latest version available to the public in any
way?  

 

I have a support contract, but there doesn't seem to be any updates
available, which doesn't seem right considering this was released 8 months
ago... Nor did it prompt me to enter any login information of any kind.
That's why I have uncertainty about whether or not I'm doing something
wrong, and whether or not it's truly fully updated.  (BTW, yes I created a
support request, but because it's sev-3, I can't expect a response till
Monday or Tuesday.)

 

Thanks...

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zil on multiple usb keys

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
> 
> Well, in terms of mirroring over stripes, if any component of any
> stripe
> breaks,
> the whole half of the mirror is degraded. If another drive from another
> half
> also breaks, you're in trouble.

There's no such thing in ZFS.  You have a series of mirrors in the pool, and
if one side of one mirror breaks, no big deal.  If another side of another
mirror breaks, no big deal.  The only problem is when you lose both sides of
a single mirror.

Now please, nobody say this is either raid10 or raid01.  Because it's
neither one.  The definition of striping according to raid0 does not exist
in ZFS - but the essence is preserved and improved upon.  In a strictly
defined raid0, you have a set number of devices which are all the same size.
It benefits large sequential operations, but it hurts small operations.  You
cannot expand by simply adding more devices, and they all must be the same
size.  The ZFS concept of striping is more like a combination of raid0
striping and concatenation ... Preserve the best parts of each and throw
away the bad parts of each.  Optimize for both small operations and serial
operations, expand with any size disk at any time.

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zil on multiple usb keys

[Jim Klimov]

2011-07-16 18:48, Tiernan OToole пишет:
thats not a typo... I was thinking 2 pools, 800gb each, and 
mirrored... think i should mess around with this setup a bit more and 
see what i can get working... might work better if i just move them 
into a new enclosure... we see what happens...




Well, in terms of mirroring over stripes, if any component of any stripe 
breaks,
the whole half of the mirror is degraded. If another drive from another 
half

also breaks, you're in trouble.

Overall raid01 is assumed to be less reliable than raid10, especially if 
there

are more than two couples of drives.

Thanks for the info on the USB drives... if the ZIL drive falls over, 
does ZFS not recover well? do i need to reboot fully?



In theory, you should have 2 drives (slices) mirrored for a ZIL.
If one breaks, the other goes on. If all break, the pool reverts to on-disk
ZIL areas in the course of several TXG syncs (a few seconds). So the
big problem is constrained in poweroff/panic of the system in these
few seconds when no ZIL is used. But in practice it may take ZFS a
long time to detect the failure/death of the device, because it is not
ZFS itself doing it - lower-level drivers like "sd" must detect and report
the problem or the timeout...

After all, I did not try a ZIL, or not for a long enough time to be certain
of anything.

From theory again, its critical property is fast writes with low latency,
and reliability. Even in comparison with a dedicated HDD slice,
my USB stick could not compete with either. But that was only a
test setup, so the sticks were not "optimized" or "fast" (3-7Mb/s).

You might want to look at CF-IDE adapters - new professional
photo CF cards mention 600x (90Mb/s) speeds at reads and
30 to 90Mb/s writes, and some internal redundancy. Probably
not cheap though... But many small  mobos include a CF port,
or a small adapter can be plugged into an IDE port. There were
some adapters which naturally "split" one IDE port into master
and slave CF ports. Or see a  PCMCIA-CF port for a laptop...
Or maybe even use a USB-CF card reader thingie.

--


++
||
| Климов Евгений, Jim Klimov |
| технический директор   CTO |
| ЗАО "ЦОС и ВТ"  JSC COS&HT |
||
| +7-903-7705859 (cellular)  mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru |
|  CC:ad...@cos.ru,jimkli...@mail.ru |
++
| ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail  |
| /\- against microsoft attachments  |
++



___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zil on multiple usb keys

[Tiernan OToole]

thats not a typo... I was thinking 2 pools, 800gb each, and mirrored...
think i should mess around with this setup a bit more and see what i can get
working... might work better if i just move them into a new enclosure... we
see what happens...

Thanks for the info on the USB drives... if the ZIL drive falls over, does
ZFS not recover well? do i need to reboot fully?

Thanks.

--Tienan

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Jim Klimov  wrote:

>  2011-07-16 15:46, Tiernan OToole пишет:
>
> Thanks for the info. need to rebuild my machine and ZFS pool kind of
> new to this and realized i built it as a stripe, not a mirror... also, want
> to add extra disks...
>
>  As a follow up question:
>
>  I have 2 500Gb internal drives and 2 300Gb USB drives. If i where to
> create a 2 pools, a 300Gb and a 500Gb in each, and then mirror over them,
> would that work? is it even posible? or what would you recomend for that
> setup?
>
>  Is there a typo? It would rather be a 2*300Gb mirror and a 2*500Gb
> mirror,
> with a "stripe" above them as much as writes can get balanced.
>
> That would work (with forcing on command-line), is possible, moderately
> recommmended because unbalanced setups can have more issues than
> usual (hence you must use the force to enable such setup).
>
> And just in case, this pool can not be a bootable rpool.
>
> You might make a 2*200Gb slice mirror for an rpool and a more balanced
> 4*300Gb pool of any layout (raid10, raidz123)...
>
> As for using USB sticks, I started my unlucky setup with some sticks used
> as L2ARC, and about once a week the device got lost (possibly because
> a stick could slide a bit from its contact bay on the chassis - BIOS also
> did
> not see the stick until it was re-plugged). Loss of a device would also
> hang
> my pool for quite a long while...
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  --Tiernan
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Edward Ned Harvey <
> opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote:
>
>> > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tiernan OToole
>>  >
>> > This might be a stupid question, but here goes... Would adding, say, 4 4
>> or
>> > 8gb usb keys as a zil make enough of a difference for writes on an iscsi
>> shared
>> > vol?
>> >
>> > I am finding reads are not too bad (40is mb/s over gige on 2 500gb
>> drives
>> > stripped) but writes top out at about 10 and drop a lot lower... If I
>> where to
>> > add a couple usb keys for zil, would it make a difference?
>>
>>  Unfortunately, usb keys, even the fastest ones, are slower than physical
>> hard drives.  I even went out of my way to buy a super expensive super
>> fast
>> USB3 16G fob...  And it's still slower than a super-cheap USB2 sata hard
>> drive.
>>
>> There is a way you can evaluate the effect of adding a fast slog device
>> without buying one.  (It would have to be a fast device, certainly no USB
>> fobs.)  Just temporarily disable your ZIL.  That's the fastest you can
>> possibly go.  If it makes a big difference, then getting a fast slog
>> device
>> will help you approach that theoretical limit.  If it doesn't make a huge
>> difference, then adding slog will not do you any good.
>>
>> To disable ZIL, if your pool is sufficiently recent, use the zfs set sync=
>> command.  It takes effect immediately.  If you have an older system,
>> you'll
>> have to use a different command, and you'll probably have to remount your
>> filesystem in order for the change to take effect.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Tiernan O'Toole
> blog.lotas-smartman.net
> www.tiernanotoolephotography.com
> www.the-hairy-one.com
>
>
> ___
> zfs-discuss mailing 
> listzfs-discuss@opensolaris.orghttp://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> ++
> ||
> | Климов Евгений, Jim Klimov |
> | технический директор   CTO |
> | ЗАО "ЦОС и ВТ"  JSC COS&HT |
> ||
> | +7-903-7705859 (cellular)  mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru 
>  |
> |  CC:ad...@cos.ru,jimkli...@mail.ru |
> ++
> | ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail  |
> | /\- against microsoft attachments  |
> ++
>
>
>
>
> ___
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
>


-- 
Tiernan O'Toole
blog.lotas-smartman.net
www.tiernanotoolephotography.com
www.the-hairy-one.com
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mai

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zil on multiple usb keys

[Tiernan OToole]

So, i like the sound of that, but the box is a very frankinbox like... it
has 2 SATA ports, one used for the boot drive, one for one of the 500s...
the second 500Gb is IDE. The 2 USB drives both internally are SATA, so
pulling one and plugging it internally wont work that well... but thats for
the info.

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Edward Ned Harvey <
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote:

> > From: Tiernan OToole [mailto:lsmart...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 7:46 AM
> >
> > I have 2 500Gb internal drives and 2 300Gb USB drives. If i where to
> create a 2
> > pools, a 300Gb and a 500Gb in each, and then mirror over them, would that
> > work? is it even posible? or what would you recomend for that setup?
>
> I think the risk of accidental disconnection is higher on the USB drive.
>  So
> I would recommend swapping the disks inside the enclosures...  One 500
> inside, one 500 outside, one 300 inside, one 300 outside.   Mirror the 500G
> drives to each other, mirror the 300g drives to each other.  That way, if
> you accidentally disconnect one or both of the external drives, you just
> plug it back in and everything moves forward without any problem.
>
>


-- 
Tiernan O'Toole
blog.lotas-smartman.net
www.tiernanotoolephotography.com
www.the-hairy-one.com
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zil on multiple usb keys

[Jim Klimov]

2011-07-16 15:46, Tiernan OToole ?:
Thanks for the info. need to rebuild my machine and ZFS pool kind 
of new to this and realized i built it as a stripe, not a mirror... 
also, want to add extra disks...


As a follow up question:

I have 2 500Gb internal drives and 2 300Gb USB drives. If i where to 
create a 2 pools, a 300Gb and a 500Gb in each, and then mirror over 
them, would that work? is it even posible? or what would you recomend 
for that setup?



Is there a typo? It would rather be a 2*300Gb mirror and a 2*500Gb mirror,
with a "stripe" above them as much as writes can get balanced.

That would work (with forcing on command-line), is possible, moderately
recommmended because unbalanced setups can have more issues than
usual (hence you must use the force to enable such setup).

And just in case, this pool can not be a bootable rpool.

You might make a 2*200Gb slice mirror for an rpool and a more balanced
4*300Gb pool of any layout (raid10, raidz123)...

As for using USB sticks, I started my unlucky setup with some sticks used
as L2ARC, and about once a week the device got lost (possibly because
a stick could slide a bit from its contact bay on the chassis - BIOS 
also did

not see the stick until it was re-plugged). Loss of a device would also hang
my pool for quite a long while...


Thanks.

--Tiernan

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Edward Ned Harvey 
> wrote:


> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
 [mailto:zfs-discuss-

> boun...@opensolaris.org ] On
Behalf Of Tiernan OToole
>
> This might be a stupid question, but here goes... Would adding,
say, 4 4
or
> 8gb usb keys as a zil make enough of a difference for writes on
an iscsi
shared
> vol?
>
> I am finding reads are not too bad (40is mb/s over gige on 2
500gb drives
> stripped) but writes top out at about 10 and drop a lot lower...
If I
where to
> add a couple usb keys for zil, would it make a difference?

Unfortunately, usb keys, even the fastest ones, are slower than
physical
hard drives.  I even went out of my way to buy a super expensive
super fast
USB3 16G fob...  And it's still slower than a super-cheap USB2
sata hard
drive.

There is a way you can evaluate the effect of adding a fast slog
device
without buying one.  (It would have to be a fast device, certainly
no USB
fobs.)  Just temporarily disable your ZIL.  That's the fastest you can
possibly go.  If it makes a big difference, then getting a fast
slog device
will help you approach that theoretical limit.  If it doesn't make
a huge
difference, then adding slog will not do you any good.

To disable ZIL, if your pool is sufficiently recent, use the zfs
set sync=
command.  It takes effect immediately.  If you have an older
system, you'll
have to use a different command, and you'll probably have to
remount your
filesystem in order for the change to take effect.




--
Tiernan O'Toole
blog.lotas-smartman.net 
www.tiernanotoolephotography.com 
www.the-hairy-one.com 


___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss



--


++
||
| ?? ???, Jim Klimov |
| ???    CTO |
| ??? "??? ? ??"  JSC COS&HT |
||
| +7-903-7705859 (cellular)  mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru |
|  CC:ad...@cos.ru,jimkli...@mail.ru |
++
| ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail  |
| /\- against microsoft attachments  |
++



___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zil on multiple usb keys

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: Tiernan OToole [mailto:lsmart...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 7:46 AM
> 
> I have 2 500Gb internal drives and 2 300Gb USB drives. If i where to
create a 2
> pools, a 300Gb and a 500Gb in each, and then mirror over them, would that
> work? is it even posible? or what would you recomend for that setup?

I think the risk of accidental disconnection is higher on the USB drive.  So
I would recommend swapping the disks inside the enclosures...  One 500
inside, one 500 outside, one 300 inside, one 300 outside.   Mirror the 500G
drives to each other, mirror the 300g drives to each other.  That way, if
you accidentally disconnect one or both of the external drives, you just
plug it back in and everything moves forward without any problem.

___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] (Zil on multiple usb keys) Mirroring the pool

[Craig Cory]

Tiernan,

Depending on how you have created your current pool, you *may* be able to add
the mirroring without rebuilding it. Each disk in the stripe can have a second
disk of equal size attached to it to form a mirrored component, or vdev. So if
your pool has 2 500GB drives, attach another 500GB drive to each, forming a
mirror of each stripe half.

# zpool status
  pool: mypool
 state: ONLINE
 scrub: none requested
config:

NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
mypool  ONLINE   0 0 0
  c0t50d1   ONLINE   0 0 0
  c0t50d2   ONLINE   0 0 0

errors: No known data errors

# zpool attach mypool c0t50d1 c0t50d3
# zpool attach mypool c0t50d2 c0t50d4
# zpool status
  pool: mypool
 state: ONLINE
 scrub: resilver completed after 0h0m with 0 errors on Sat Jul 16 07:38:07 2011
config:

NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
mypool   ONLINE   0 0 0
  mirror ONLINE   0 0 0
c0t50d1  ONLINE   0 0 0
c0t50d3  ONLINE   0 0 0
  mirror ONLINE   0 0 0
c0t50d2  ONLINE   0 0 0
c0t50d4  ONLINE   0 0 0

errors: No known data errors
#

Both single vdevs (c0t50d1 and c0t50d2) are now mirrored.

If you don't have a second disk appropriately sized to match the current pool
members, you can create one or two pools with your two 500GB and two 300GB
disks,, depending on your needs.

Either:

# zpool create pool1 mirror <500GB-1> <500GB-2> mirror <300GB-1> <300GB-2>

to make one ~800GB pool. Or

# zpool create pool1 mirror <500GB-1> <500GB-2>
# zpool create pool2 mirror <300GB-1> <300GB-2>

to make two pools, one ~500GB and one ~300GB.

As long as the mirrored pairs match they do not have to be all the same in the
pool.

Craig









Tiernan OToole wrote:
> Thanks for the info. need to rebuild my machine and ZFS pool kind of new
> to this and realized i built it as a stripe, not a mirror... also, want to
> add extra disks...
>
> As a follow up question:
>
> I have 2 500Gb internal drives and 2 300Gb USB drives. If i where to create
> a 2 pools, a 300Gb and a 500Gb in each, and then mirror over them, would
> that work? is it even posible? or what would you recomend for that setup?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Tiernan
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Edward Ned Harvey <
> opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote:
>
>> > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tiernan OToole
>> >
>> > This might be a stupid question, but here goes... Would adding, say, 4 4
>> or
>> > 8gb usb keys as a zil make enough of a difference for writes on an iscsi
>> shared
>> > vol?
>> >
>> > I am finding reads are not too bad (40is mb/s over gige on 2 500gb drives
>> > stripped) but writes top out at about 10 and drop a lot lower... If I
>> where to
>> > add a couple usb keys for zil, would it make a difference?
>>
>> Unfortunately, usb keys, even the fastest ones, are slower than physical
>> hard drives.  I even went out of my way to buy a super expensive super fast
>> USB3 16G fob...  And it's still slower than a super-cheap USB2 sata hard
>> drive.
>>
>> There is a way you can evaluate the effect of adding a fast slog device
>> without buying one.  (It would have to be a fast device, certainly no USB
>> fobs.)  Just temporarily disable your ZIL.  That's the fastest you can
>> possibly go.  If it makes a big difference, then getting a fast slog device
>> will help you approach that theoretical limit.  If it doesn't make a huge
>> difference, then adding slog will not do you any good.
>>
>> To disable ZIL, if your pool is sufficiently recent, use the zfs set sync=
>> command.  It takes effect immediately.  If you have an older system, you'll
>> have to use a different command, and you'll probably have to remount your
>> filesystem in order for the change to take effect.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Tiernan O'Toole
> blog.lotas-smartman.net
> www.tiernanotoolephotography.com
> www.the-hairy-one.com
> ___
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>


-- 
Craig Cory
 Senior Instructor :: ExitCertified
 : Oracle/Sun Certified System Administrator
 : Oracle/Sun Certified Network Administrator
 : Oracle/Sun Certified Security Administrator
 : Symantec/Veritas Certified Instructor
 : RedHat Certified Systems Administrator

 8950 Cal Center Drive
 Bldg 1, Suite 110
 Sacramento, California  95826
 [e] craig.c...@exitcertified.com
 [p] 916.669.3970
 [f] 916.669.3977

+-+
 ExitCertified :: Excellence in IT Certified Education

  Certified training with Oracle, Sun Microsystems, Apple, Symantec, IBM,
   Red Hat, MySQL, Hitachi Storage, SpringSource and VMWare.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zil on multiple usb keys

[Tiernan OToole]

Thanks for the info. need to rebuild my machine and ZFS pool kind of new
to this and realized i built it as a stripe, not a mirror... also, want to
add extra disks...

As a follow up question:

I have 2 500Gb internal drives and 2 300Gb USB drives. If i where to create
a 2 pools, a 300Gb and a 500Gb in each, and then mirror over them, would
that work? is it even posible? or what would you recomend for that setup?

Thanks.

--Tiernan

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Edward Ned Harvey <
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote:

> > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tiernan OToole
> >
> > This might be a stupid question, but here goes... Would adding, say, 4 4
> or
> > 8gb usb keys as a zil make enough of a difference for writes on an iscsi
> shared
> > vol?
> >
> > I am finding reads are not too bad (40is mb/s over gige on 2 500gb drives
> > stripped) but writes top out at about 10 and drop a lot lower... If I
> where to
> > add a couple usb keys for zil, would it make a difference?
>
> Unfortunately, usb keys, even the fastest ones, are slower than physical
> hard drives.  I even went out of my way to buy a super expensive super fast
> USB3 16G fob...  And it's still slower than a super-cheap USB2 sata hard
> drive.
>
> There is a way you can evaluate the effect of adding a fast slog device
> without buying one.  (It would have to be a fast device, certainly no USB
> fobs.)  Just temporarily disable your ZIL.  That's the fastest you can
> possibly go.  If it makes a big difference, then getting a fast slog device
> will help you approach that theoretical limit.  If it doesn't make a huge
> difference, then adding slog will not do you any good.
>
> To disable ZIL, if your pool is sufficiently recent, use the zfs set sync=
> command.  It takes effect immediately.  If you have an older system, you'll
> have to use a different command, and you'll probably have to remount your
> filesystem in order for the change to take effect.
>
>


-- 
Tiernan O'Toole
blog.lotas-smartman.net
www.tiernanotoolephotography.com
www.the-hairy-one.com
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zil on multiple usb keys

[Tiernan OToole]

Well, not knowing a lot about these, but if the flash stick is based on SSD,
then it might work well, but if its just a standard USB key rebundled as a
eSATA disk, maybe not...

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 04:21:13PM +, Tiernan OToole wrote:
> > This might be a stupid question, but here goes... Would adding, say, 4 4
> or 8gb usb keys as a zil make enough of a difference for writes on an iscsi
> shared vol?
> >
> > I am finding reads are not too bad (40is mb/s over gige on 2 500gb drives
> stripped) but writes top out at about 10 and drop a lot lower... If I where
> to add a couple usb keys for zil, would it make a difference?
>
> Speaking of which, is there a point in using an eSATA flash stick?
> If yes, which?
>
> --
> Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org
> __
> ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> ___
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>



-- 
Tiernan O'Toole
blog.lotas-smartman.net
www.tiernanotoolephotography.com
www.the-hairy-one.com
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss