Scott Dickson wrote:
> A customer asked today about the ability to snapshot and rollback
> individual files. They have an environment where users might generate
> lots of files, but want only a portion of them to be included in a
> snapshot. Moreover, typically when they recover a file, they only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Well, I don't know about his particular case, but many QFS clients
> >have found the separation of da ta and metadata to be invaluable. The
> >primary reason is that it avoids disk seeks. We have QFS cust omers who
> >are running at over 90% of theoretical bandwidth o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >UNIX admin wrote:
> >> > There's still an opening in the shared filesystem
> >> > space (multi-reader
> >> > and multi-writer). Fix QFS, or extend ZFS?
> >>
> >> That one's a no-brainer, innit? Extend ZFS and plough on.
> >
> >Uhm... I think this is not that easy. Based
Lori Alt wrote:
> Roland Mainz wrote:
> > Will the initial ZFS root filesystem putback include support for system
> > suspend (see sys-suspend(1M)) on SPARC ?
> It is our intention to support system suspend on SPARC
> when booted off a zfs root file system.
That would be very cool! :-)
BTW: Plea
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 03:28:12PM +0200, Roch Bourbonnais - Performance
Engineering wrote:
> Hi Grant, this may provide some guidance for your setup;
>
> it's somewhat theoretical (take it for what it's worth) but
> it spells out some of the tradeoffs in the RAID-Z vs Mirror
> battle:
>
>
>
Hello Matty,
Wednesday, May 31, 2006, 10:46:29 PM, you wrote:
M> On Wed, 31 May 2006, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hello zfs-discuss,
>>
>> I noticed on a nfs server with ZFS that even with atime set to off
>> and clients only reading data (almost 100% reads - except some
>> unlinks()) I still
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 12:26:55AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello zfs-discuss,
>
> I noticed on a nfs server with ZFS that even with atime set to off
> and clients only reading data (almost 100% reads - except some
> unlinks()) I still can see some MB/s being written according to
>
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello zfs-discuss,
I noticed on a nfs server with ZFS that even with atime set to off
and clients only reading data (almost 100% reads - except some
unlinks()) I still can see some MB/s being written according to
zpool iostat. What could be the c
Hello Matthew,
Wednesday, May 31, 2006, 8:09:08 PM, you wrote:
MA> There are a few related questions that I think you want answered.
MA> 1. How does RAID-Z effect performance?
MA> When using RAID-Z, each filesystem block is spread across (typically)
MA> all disks in the raid-z group. So to a f
There are a few related questions that I think you want answered.
1. How does RAID-Z effect performance?
When using RAID-Z, each filesystem block is spread across (typically)
all disks in the raid-z group. So to a first approximation, each raid-z
group provides the iops of a single disk (but the
For things like the 3510FC which (can) have Hardware Raid, I've been
hearing that ZFS is preferable to the HW RAID controller to define
arrays. I understand the rational and logic behind these arguments.
However, most HW RAID controllers have a large amount of NVRAM, which
_really_ helps write per
If sys-suspend is ever made to work in general for Solaris x86,
I expect it will work with zfs root file systems too.
Lori
Nathan Kroenert wrote:
Not X86?
:(
(Yes - I know there are lots of other things that need to happen first,
but :( nonetheless... )
Nathan.
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 01:51,
On May 31, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
Hunh. Gigabit ethernet devices typically implement some form of
interrupt blanking or coalescing so that the host cpu can batch I/O
completion handling. That doesn't exist in FC controllers?
Not in quite the same way, AFAIK. Usually there
Another pool - different array, different host, different workload.
And again - summay read throutput to all disks in a pool is 10x bigger than to
a pool itself.
Iny idea?
bash-3.00# zpool iostat -v 1
capacity operationsbandwidth
pool
That's interesting - 'zpool iostat' shows quite small read volume to any pool
however if I run 'zpool iostat -v' then I can see that while read volume to a
pool is small, read volume to each disk is actually quite large so in summary I
get over 10x read volume if I sum all disks in a pool than o
Well, here's my previous summary off list to different solaris folk
(regarding NFS serving via ZFS and iSCSI):
I want to use ZFS as a NAS with no bounds on the backing hardware (not
restricted to one boxes capacity). Thus, there are two options: FC SAN
or iSCSI. In my case, I have multi-building
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 10:48, Anton Rang wrote:
>We generally take one interrupt for each I/O
>(if the CPU is fast enough), so instead of taking one
>interrupt for 8 MB (for instance), we take 64.
Hunh. Gigabit ethernet devices typically implement some form of
interrupt blanking or coa
On May 31, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Roch Bourbonnais - Performance
Engineering wrote:
I'm not taking a stance on this, but if I keep a controler
full of 128K I/Os and assuming there are targetting
contiguous physical blocks, how different is that to issuing
a very large I/O ?
There are d
> I think ZFS should do fine in streaming mode also, though there are
> currently some shortcomings, such as the mentioned 128K I/O size.
It may eventually. The lack of direct I/O may also be an issue, since
some of our systems don't have enough main memory bandwidth to support
data be
Anton wrote:
(For what it's worth, the current 128K-per-I/O policy of ZFS really
hurts its performance for large writes. I imagine this would not be
too difficult to fix if we allowed multiple 128K blocks to be
allocated as a group.)
I'm not taking a stance on this, but if I keep a co
Hi Grant, this may provide some guidance for your setup;
it's somewhat theoretical (take it for what it's worth) but
it spells out some of the tradeoffs in the RAID-Z vs Mirror
battle:
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/roch?entry=when_to_and_not_to
As for serving NFS, the user e
Anton Rang wrote:
It's also worth noting that the customers for whom streaming is a real
issue tend to be those who are willing to spend a lot of money for
reliability (think replicating the whole system+storage) rather than
compromising performance; for them, simply the checksumming overhead
and
22 matches
Mail list logo
