On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Ronald Klop ronald-freeb...@klop.yi.org wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:55:43 +0200, seanr...@gmail.com 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
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, 09 Aug 2011 10:38:01 +0200, seanr...@gmail.com
seanr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Ronald Klop
ronald-freeb...@klop.yi.org wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 12:55:43 +0200, seanr...@gmail.com
seanr...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think this zpool upgrade thing is weird. Can
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
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 it seems to me
On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Sean Rees seanr...@gmail.com 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 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 it take
Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg 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
Hi, all,
Am 05.08.2011 um 17:12 schrieb Christian Weisgerber:
Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg 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.
On 06/08/2011, at 5:17, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Am 05.08.2011 um 17:12 schrieb Christian Weisgerber:
Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg 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
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 08/05/11 21:47, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
Hi, all,
Am 05.08.2011 um 17:12 schrieb Christian Weisgerber:
Daniel Kalchevdan...@digsys.bg 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
On 2011-Aug-02 08:39:03 +0100, seanr...@gmail.com 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
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
directory and populated it over the course of 3 weeks with
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
seanr...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
I Googled around and checked the PRs and wasn't successful in finding
any
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 a
inline
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Jeremy Chadwick
free...@jdc.parodius.com 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
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:39 AM, seanr...@gmail.com 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
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
free...@jdc.parodius.com 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
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 single
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 keep this
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
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg 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
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 dan...@digsys.bg 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
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
free...@jdc.parodius.com 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 dan...@digsys.bg wrote:
If it is a limitation in ZFS it would be nice to know that, perhaps it
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, 02 Aug 2011 12:55:43 +0200, seanr...@gmail.com
seanr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg 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
27 matches
Mail list logo
