Re: [zfs-discuss] Lundman home NAS
The case is made by Chyangfun, and the model made for Mini-ITX motherboards is called CGN-S40X. They had 6 pcs left last I talked to them, and need 3 week lead for more if I understand it correctly. I need to finish my LCD panel work before I will open shop to sell these. As for temperature, I have only check the server HDDs so far (on my wiki) but will test with green HDDs tonight. I do not know if Solaris can retrieve the Atom chipset temperature readings. The parts I used should be listed on my wiki. Anon wrote: I have the same case which I use as directed attached storage. I never thought about using it with a motherboard inside. Could you provide a complete parts list? What sort of temperatures at the chip, chipset, and drives did you find? Thanks! -- Jorgen Lundman | lund...@lundman.net Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Lundman home NAS
I have the same case which I use as directed attached storage. I never thought about using it with a motherboard inside. Could you provide a complete parts list? What sort of temperatures at the chip, chipset, and drives did you find? 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] Lundman home NAS
100Mbit is quite flat at 11MB/s; http://lundman.net/wiki/index.php/Lraid5_iozone#Solaris_10_64-bit.2C_OsX_10.5.5_NFSv3.2C_100MBit.2C_ZIL_cache_disabled 1Gbit, MTU 1500; http://lundman.net/wiki/index.php/Lraid5_iozone#Solaris_10_64-bit.2C_OsX_10.5.5_NFSv3.2C_1GBit.2C_ZIL_cache_disabled Not sure how to enable jumbo frames on the rge0. When I use dladm set-linkprop -p mtu 9000 rge0 I get operation not supported. PERM is r--. Most likely I have to set it with rge.conf, and reboot, but I would need to rebuild my USB image for that. (unplumb, modunload, modload, plumb did not seem to enable it either). Jorgen Lundman wrote: Ok I have redone the initial tests as 4G instead. Graphs are on the same place. http://lundman.net/wiki/index.php/Lraid5_iozone I also mounted it with nfsv3 and mounted it for more iozone. Alas, I started with 100mbit, so it has taken quite a while. It is constantly at 11MB/s though. ;) Jorgen Lundman wrote: I was following Toms Hardware on how they test NAS units. I have 2GB memory, so I will re-run the test at 4, if I figure out which option that is. I used Excel for the graphs in this case, gnuplot did not want to work. (Nor did Excel mind you) Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Louis-Frédéric Feuillette wrote: I find the results suspect. 1.2GB/s read, and 500MB/s write ! These are impressive numbers indeed. I then looked at the file sizes that iozone used... How much memory do you have? I seems like the files would be able to comfortably fit in memory. I think this test needs to be re-run with Large files (ie 2*Memory size ) for them to give more accurate data. The numbers are indeed suspect but the iozone sweep test is quite useful in order to see the influence of zfs's caching via the ARC. The sweep should definitely be run to at least 2X the memory size. Unrelated, what did you use to generate those graphs, they look good. Iozone output may be plotted via gnuplot or Microsoft Excel. This looks like the gnuplot output. 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 -- Jorgen Lundman | lund...@lundman.net Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Lundman home NAS
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Jorgen Lundman lund...@gmo.jp wrote: 100Mbit is quite flat at 11MB/s; http://lundman.net/wiki/index.php/Lraid5_iozone#Solaris_10_64-bit.2C_OsX_10.5.5_NFSv3.2C_100MBit.2C_ZIL_cache_disabled 1Gbit, MTU 1500; http://lundman.net/wiki/index.php/Lraid5_iozone#Solaris_10_64-bit.2C_OsX_10.5.5_NFSv3.2C_1GBit.2C_ZIL_cache_disabled Not sure how to enable jumbo frames on the rge0. When I use dladm set-linkprop -p mtu 9000 rge0 I get operation not supported. PERM is r--. Most likely I have to set it with rge.conf, and reboot, but I would need to rebuild my USB image for that. (unplumb, modunload, modload, plumb did not seem to enable it either). Your NIC may not support it. Realtek and Broadcom both make cheap, cheap chipsets that are gigE but do not support jumbo frames. Rather annoying in this day and age. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Lundman home NAS
Some preliminary speed tests, not too bad for a pci32 card. http://lundman.net/wiki/index.php/Lraid5_iozone Jorgen Lundman wrote: Finding a SATA card that would work with Solaris, and be hot-swap, and more than 4 ports, sure took a while. Oh and be reasonably priced ;) Double the price of the dual core Atom did not seem right. The SATA card was a close fit to the jumper were the power-switch cable attaches, as you can see in one of the photos. This is because the MV8 card is quite long, and has the big plastic SATA sockets. It does fit, but it was the tightest spot. I also picked the 5-in-3 drive cage that had the shortest depth listed, 190mm. For example the Supermicro M35T is 245mm, another 5cm. Not sure that would fit. Lund Nathan Fiedler wrote: Yes, please write more about this. The photos are terrific and I appreciate the many useful observations you've made. For my home NAS I chose the Chenbro ES34069 and the biggest problem was finding a SATA/PCI card that would work with OpenSolaris and fit in the case (technically impossible without a ribbon cable PCI adapter). After seeing this, I may reconsider my choice. For the SATA card, you mentioned that it was a close fit with the case power switch. Would removing the backplane on the card have helped? Thanks n On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Jorgen Lundmanlund...@gmo.jp wrote: I have assembled my home RAID finally, and I think it looks rather good. http://www.lundman.net/gallery/v/lraid5/p1150547.jpg.html Feedback is welcome. I have yet to do proper speed tests, I will do so in the coming week should people be interested. Even though I have tried to use only existing, and cheap, parts the end sum became higher than I expected. Final price is somewhere in the 47,000 yen range. (Without hard disks) If I were to make and sell these, they would be 57,000 or so, so I do not really know if anyone would be interested. Especially since SOHO NAS devices seem to start around 80,000. Anyway, sure has been fun. Lund ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Jorgen Lundman | lund...@lundman.net Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Lundman home NAS
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 22:31 +0900, Jorgen Lundman wrote: Some preliminary speed tests, not too bad for a pci32 card. http://lundman.net/wiki/index.php/Lraid5_iozone I don't know anything about iozone, so the following may be NULL void. I find the results suspect. 1.2GB/s read, and 500MB/s write ! These are impressive numbers indeed. I then looked at the file sizes that iozone used... How much memory do you have? I seems like the files would be able to comfortably fit in memory. I think this test needs to be re-run with Large files (ie 2*Memory size ) for them to give more accurate data. Unrelated, what did you use to generate those graphs, they look good. Also, do you have a hardware list on your site somewhere that I missed? I'd like to know more about the hardware. -- Louis-Frédéric Feuillette jeb...@gmail.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Lundman home NAS
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Louis-Frédéric Feuillette wrote: I find the results suspect. 1.2GB/s read, and 500MB/s write ! These are impressive numbers indeed. I then looked at the file sizes that iozone used... How much memory do you have? I seems like the files would be able to comfortably fit in memory. I think this test needs to be re-run with Large files (ie 2*Memory size ) for them to give more accurate data. The numbers are indeed suspect but the iozone sweep test is quite useful in order to see the influence of zfs's caching via the ARC. The sweep should definitely be run to at least 2X the memory size. Unrelated, what did you use to generate those graphs, they look good. Iozone output may be plotted via gnuplot or Microsoft Excel. This looks like the gnuplot output. 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] Lundman home NAS
Ok I have redone the initial tests as 4G instead. Graphs are on the same place. http://lundman.net/wiki/index.php/Lraid5_iozone I also mounted it with nfsv3 and mounted it for more iozone. Alas, I started with 100mbit, so it has taken quite a while. It is constantly at 11MB/s though. ;) Jorgen Lundman wrote: I was following Toms Hardware on how they test NAS units. I have 2GB memory, so I will re-run the test at 4, if I figure out which option that is. I used Excel for the graphs in this case, gnuplot did not want to work. (Nor did Excel mind you) Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Louis-Frédéric Feuillette wrote: I find the results suspect. 1.2GB/s read, and 500MB/s write ! These are impressive numbers indeed. I then looked at the file sizes that iozone used... How much memory do you have? I seems like the files would be able to comfortably fit in memory. I think this test needs to be re-run with Large files (ie 2*Memory size ) for them to give more accurate data. The numbers are indeed suspect but the iozone sweep test is quite useful in order to see the influence of zfs's caching via the ARC. The sweep should definitely be run to at least 2X the memory size. Unrelated, what did you use to generate those graphs, they look good. Iozone output may be plotted via gnuplot or Microsoft Excel. This looks like the gnuplot output. 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 -- Jorgen Lundman | lund...@lundman.net Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Lundman home NAS
Yes, please write more about this. The photos are terrific and I appreciate the many useful observations you've made. For my home NAS I chose the Chenbro ES34069 and the biggest problem was finding a SATA/PCI card that would work with OpenSolaris and fit in the case (technically impossible without a ribbon cable PCI adapter). After seeing this, I may reconsider my choice. For the SATA card, you mentioned that it was a close fit with the case power switch. Would removing the backplane on the card have helped? Thanks n On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Jorgen Lundmanlund...@gmo.jp wrote: I have assembled my home RAID finally, and I think it looks rather good. http://www.lundman.net/gallery/v/lraid5/p1150547.jpg.html Feedback is welcome. I have yet to do proper speed tests, I will do so in the coming week should people be interested. Even though I have tried to use only existing, and cheap, parts the end sum became higher than I expected. Final price is somewhere in the 47,000 yen range. (Without hard disks) If I were to make and sell these, they would be 57,000 or so, so I do not really know if anyone would be interested. Especially since SOHO NAS devices seem to start around 80,000. Anyway, sure has been fun. Lund ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Lundman home NAS
Finding a SATA card that would work with Solaris, and be hot-swap, and more than 4 ports, sure took a while. Oh and be reasonably priced ;) Double the price of the dual core Atom did not seem right. The SATA card was a close fit to the jumper were the power-switch cable attaches, as you can see in one of the photos. This is because the MV8 card is quite long, and has the big plastic SATA sockets. It does fit, but it was the tightest spot. I also picked the 5-in-3 drive cage that had the shortest depth listed, 190mm. For example the Supermicro M35T is 245mm, another 5cm. Not sure that would fit. Lund Nathan Fiedler wrote: Yes, please write more about this. The photos are terrific and I appreciate the many useful observations you've made. For my home NAS I chose the Chenbro ES34069 and the biggest problem was finding a SATA/PCI card that would work with OpenSolaris and fit in the case (technically impossible without a ribbon cable PCI adapter). After seeing this, I may reconsider my choice. For the SATA card, you mentioned that it was a close fit with the case power switch. Would removing the backplane on the card have helped? Thanks n On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:22 AM, Jorgen Lundmanlund...@gmo.jp wrote: I have assembled my home RAID finally, and I think it looks rather good. http://www.lundman.net/gallery/v/lraid5/p1150547.jpg.html Feedback is welcome. I have yet to do proper speed tests, I will do so in the coming week should people be interested. Even though I have tried to use only existing, and cheap, parts the end sum became higher than I expected. Final price is somewhere in the 47,000 yen range. (Without hard disks) If I were to make and sell these, they would be 57,000 or so, so I do not really know if anyone would be interested. Especially since SOHO NAS devices seem to start around 80,000. Anyway, sure has been fun. Lund ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Jorgen Lundman | lund...@lundman.net Unix Administrator | +81 (0)3 -5456-2687 ext 1017 (work) Shibuya-ku, Tokyo| +81 (0)90-5578-8500 (cell) Japan| +81 (0)3 -3375-1767 (home) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
