On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:38:01 +0200, seanr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Ronald Klop
wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:55:43 +0200, seanr...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think this zpool upgrade thing is weird. Can you try 'zpool upgrade
-a'?
Mine says:
zpool get version zroo
On 8/2/11 9:39 AM, seanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I Googled around and checked the PRs and wasn't successful in finding
> any reports of what I'm seeing. I'm hoping someone here can help me
> debug what's going on.
>
> On my FreeBSD 8.2-S machine (built circa 12th June), I created a
>
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Ronald Klop wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:55:43 +0200, seanr...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> I think this zpool upgrade thing is weird. Can you try 'zpool upgrade -a'?
>
> Mine says:
> zpool get version zroot
> NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
> zroot version 28
On 06.08.11 09:24, Gary Palmer wrote:
Its been quite a while since I worked on the filesystem stuff in any
detail but I believe, at least for UFS, it doesn't GC the directory,
just truncate it if enough of the entries at the end are deleted to
free up at least one fragment or block.
This wa
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Sean Rees wrote:
>
> On Aug 6, 2011, at 07:24, Gary Palmer wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 08:56:36PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> On 08/05/2011 20:38, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>>>
Ahh, but OP had moved these files away and performance was still poor..
>>>
On Aug 6, 2011, at 07:24, Gary Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 08:56:36PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> On 08/05/2011 20:38, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>>
>>> Ahh, but OP had moved these files away and performance was still poor..
>>> _that_ is the bug.
>>
>> I'm no file system expert, but
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 08:56:36PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 08/05/2011 20:38, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> > Ahh, but OP had moved these files away and performance was still poor..
> > _that_ is the bug.
>
> I'm no file system expert, but it seems to me the key questions are; how
> long does
On 08/05/11 21:47, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Hi, all,
Am 05.08.2011 um 17:12 schrieb Christian Weisgerber:
Daniel Kalchev wrote:
On 02.08.11 12:46, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
I am pretty sure UFS does not have this problem. i.e. once you
delete/move the files out of the directory its performance
On 08/05/2011 20:38, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> Ahh, but OP had moved these files away and performance was still poor..
> _that_ is the bug.
I'm no file system expert, but it seems to me the key questions are; how
long does it take the system to recover from this condition, and if it's
more than N
On 06/08/2011, at 5:17, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> Am 05.08.2011 um 17:12 schrieb Christian Weisgerber:
>> Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>>
>>> On 02.08.11 12:46, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
I am pretty sure UFS does not have this problem. i.e. once you
delete/move the files out of the directory i
Hi, all,
Am 05.08.2011 um 17:12 schrieb Christian Weisgerber:
> Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>
>> On 02.08.11 12:46, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>>> I am pretty sure UFS does not have this problem. i.e. once you
>>> delete/move the files out of the directory its performance would be
>>> good again.
>>
>
Daniel Kalchev wrote:
> On 02.08.11 12:46, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> > I am pretty sure UFS does not have this problem. i.e. once you
> > delete/move the files out of the directory its performance would be
> > good again.
>
> UFS would be the classic example of poor performance if you do this.
On 2011-Aug-02 08:39:03 +0100, "seanr...@gmail.com" wrote:
>On my FreeBSD 8.2-S machine (built circa 12th June), I created a
>directory and populated it over the course of 3 weeks with about 2
>million individual files. As you might imagine, a 'ls' of this
>directory took quite some time.
>
>The f
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:55:43 +0200, seanr...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
If it is a limitation in ZFS it would be nice to know that, perhaps it
truly, really is a bug that can be avoided (or it's inherent in the
way ZFS
handles such things)
I
On 02/08/2011 11:10, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
> Other than that, perhaps in ZFS it would be easier to prune the unused
> directory entries, than it is in UFS. It looks like this is not
> implemented.
Remember that ZFS uses copy-on-write for all filesystem updates. Any
change to a directory contents
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 11:55:43AM +0100, seanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>> >> If it is a limitation in ZFS it would be nice to know that, perhaps it
>> >> truly, really is a bug that ca
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 11:55:43AM +0100, seanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
> >> If it is a limitation in ZFS it would be nice to know that, perhaps it
> >> truly, really is a bug that can be avoided (or it's inherent in the way ZFS
> >> handles suc
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>> If it is a limitation in ZFS it would be nice to know that, perhaps it
>> truly, really is a bug that can be avoided (or it's inherent in the way ZFS
>> handles such things)
>
> It is possible that there is not enough memory in ARC to cach
On 02.08.11 12:46, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
I am pretty sure UFS does not have this problem. i.e. once you
delete/move the files out of the directory its performance would be
good again.
UFS would be the classic example of poor performance if you do this.
If it is a limitation in ZFS it woul
On 02/08/2011, at 18:38, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 08:39:03AM +0100, seanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On my FreeBSD 8.2-S machine (built circa 12th June), I created a
>> directory and populated it over the course of 3 weeks with about 2
>> million individual files.
>
> I'll kee
On 02/08/2011, at 19:12, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> When I was being taught the ropes of system administration at Oregon
> State, the team of crotchety UNIX admins there made it quite clear that
> there were things you just Did Not Do(tm) to computer systems. Shoving
> thousands of files into a sin
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 10:16:35AM +0100, seanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 08:39:03AM +0100, seanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On my FreeBSD 8.2-S machine (built circa 12th June), I created a
> >> directory and populated
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:39 AM, seanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On my FreeBSD 8.2-S machine (built circa 12th June), I created a
> directory and populated it over the course of 3 weeks with about 2
> million individual files. As you might imagine, a 'ls' of this
> directory took quite some time.
What
inline
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 08:39:03AM +0100, seanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On my FreeBSD 8.2-S machine (built circa 12th June), I created a
>> directory and populated it over the course of 3 weeks with about 2
>> million individual file
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 08:39:03AM +0100, seanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On my FreeBSD 8.2-S machine (built circa 12th June), I created a
> directory and populated it over the course of 3 weeks with about 2
> million individual files.
I'll keep this real simple:
Why did you do this?
I hope this was
Not an in depth solution for ZFS, but maybe a solution for you.
mkdir images2
mv images/* images2
rmdir images
Ronald.
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:39:03 +0200, seanr...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi there,
I Googled around and checked the PRs and wasn't successful in finding
any reports of what I'm see
26 matches
Mail list logo
