On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 08:37:23AM -0700, Neelakanth Nadgir wrote:
> We did an experiment where we placed the logs on UFS+DIO and the
> rest on ZFS. This was a write heavy benchmark. We did not see
> much gain in performance by doing that (around 5%). I suspect
> you would be willing to trade 5% fo
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
I have set up a Solaris 10 U2 06/06 system that has basic patches
to the latest -19 kernel patch and latest zfs genesis etc as
recommended. I have set up a basic pool (local) and a bunch of sub-
pools (local/mail, local/mail/shire.net, local/mail/shire.net
Edward,
/etc/zpool.cache contains data pointing to devices involved in a
zpool. Changes to ZFS datasets are reflected in the actual zpool so
destroying a zfs dataset should not change zpool.cache.
zfs destroy is the correct command to destroy a file system.
It will be easier if we can know
- t
On Sep 25, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Mike Kupfer wrote:
"Chad" == Chad Leigh <-- Shire.Net LLC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
Chad> so -t a should show wall clock time
The capture file always records absolute time. So you (just) need to
use "-t a" when you decode the capture file.
Sorry for not mak
> "Chad" == Chad Leigh <-- Shire.Net LLC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
Chad> so -t a should show wall clock time
The capture file always records absolute time. So you (just) need to
use "-t a" when you decode the capture file.
Sorry for not making the clear earlier.
mike
__
other example:
rsyncing from/to the same zpool:
device r/sw/s Mr/s Mw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b
c625.0 276.51.33.8 1.9 16.5 61.1 0 135
sd44 6.0 158.30.30.4 1.9 15.5 106.2 33 [b]100[/b]
sd45 6.0 37.10.31.1 0.0 0.3
On Sep 25, 2006, at 2:49 PM, Mike Kupfer wrote:
"Chad" == Chad Leigh <-- Shire.Net LLC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
Chad> There seems to be no packet headers or time stamps or
anything --
Chad> just a lot of binary data. What am I looking for?
Use "snoop -i " to decode the capture file.
Just thought I'd share some recent experiences. I had an Adaptec ASH-1233 PCI
controller (based on the Silicon Image SII0680ACL144 chip) in my Nevada build
45 system (a white box PC based on the AMD 3200+ CPU). This system is the
backup for my main home server. Using zfs send | rsh zfs receive t
> "Chad" == Chad Leigh <-- Shire.Net LLC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
Chad> There seems to be no packet headers or time stamps or anything --
Chad> just a lot of binary data. What am I looking for?
Use "snoop -i " to decode the capture file.
cheers,
mike
___
I just posted a blog on recommendations for ZFS and databases. This
is based of the work that Roch and I (and other members of PAE) did.
http://blogs.sun.com/realneel/entry/zfs_and_databases
Hope that helps
-neel
--
---
Neelakanth Nadgir PAE Performance And Availability Eng
_
Good day all. Please respond to me directly as I am not on this alias.
I have a customer who is develping his site's implementation of zfs,
my case come to me because he is using Solaris 10 6/06 x86 on a Sun Fire
V40z (an x86 unit). He had no problem assembling and mounting a zfs
volume,
On Sep 25, 2006, at 1:15 PM, Mike Kupfer wrote:
"Chad" == Chad Leigh <-- Shire.Net LLC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
Chad> On Sep 25, 2006, at 12:18 PM, eric kustarz wrote:
You can also grab a snoop trace to see what packets are not being
responded too?
Chad> If I can catch it happening.
> "Chad" == Chad Leigh <-- Shire.Net LLC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> writes:
Chad> On Sep 25, 2006, at 12:18 PM, eric kustarz wrote:
>> You can also grab a snoop trace to see what packets are not being
>> responded too?
Chad> If I can catch it happening. Most of the time I am not around and
Chad>
Arlina,
The ZFS GUI runs within the Java Web Console, so there is no port
conflict.
My guess is that the Java Web Console was upgraded to version 3.0.x,
which breaks the ZFS GUI. Run "pkginfo SUNWmcon" to verify.
The bug ID for this is:
6473968 ZFS GUI does not function under Lockhart 3.0 in s
On Sep 25, 2006, at 12:18 PM, eric kustarz wrote:
Chad Leigh wrote:
I have set up a Solaris 10 U2 06/06 system that has basic patches
to the latest -19 kernel patch and latest zfs genesis etc as
recommended. I have set up a basic pool (local) and a bunch of
sub-pools (local/mail, local/
Chad Leigh wrote:
I have set up a Solaris 10 U2 06/06 system that has basic patches to the latest
-19 kernel patch and latest zfs genesis etc as recommended. I have set up a
basic pool (local) and a bunch of sub-pools (local/mail, local/mail/shire.net,
local/mail/shire.net/o, local/jailextra
Harley Gorrell wrote:
I do wonder what accounts for the improvement -- seek
time, transfer rate, disk cache, or something else? Does
anywone have a dtrace script to measure this which they
would share?
You might also be seeing the effects of defect management. As
drives get older, they ten
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Roch wrote:
This looks like on the second run, you had lots more free
memory and mkfile completed near memcpy speed.
Both times the system was near idle.
Something is awry on the first pass though. Then,
zpool iostat 1
can put some lights on this. IO will kee
All,
Anyone for this?
I haven't received any informations regarding this. This is my third
attempt and i would appreciate if you can
send me any info you have.
TIA,
Arlina
NOTE: Please email me directly as i'm not on this alias.
--- Begin Message ---
I'm resending this again since i haven't
We did an experiment where we placed the logs on UFS+DIO and the
rest on ZFS. This was a write heavy benchmark. We did not see
much gain in performance by doing that (around 5%). I suspect
you would be willing to trade 5% for all the benefits of ZFS.
Moreover this penalty is for the current versio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:38:05PM +0200, Roch wrote:
> >
> >
> >http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/zfs_and_oltp
>
> After reading this page and taking into consideration my (not so big)
> knowledge
> of ZFS it came to my mind that putting e.g. Oracle on bo
Harley Gorrell writes:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Are you just trying to measure ZFS's read performance here?
>
> That is what I started looking at. We scrounged around
> and found a set of 300GB drives to replace the old ones we
> started with. Comparing the
After giving a demo of ZFS I was asked if there is anyway to protect the
.zfs/snapshot directory and or the snapshots in it?
The reason was to cover the case where a user creates a file that is mode 644
and later realises this is not correct and changes it to mode 600. If a
snapshot happens wh
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:38:05PM +0200, Roch wrote:
>
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/zfs_and_oltp
After reading this page and taking into consideration my (not so big) knowledge
of ZFS it came to my mind that putting e.g. Oracle on both UFS+DIO _and_
ZFS would be the best solution _
I have set up a Solaris 10 U2 06/06 system that has basic patches to the latest
-19 kernel patch and latest zfs genesis etc as recommended. I have set up a
basic pool (local) and a bunch of sub-pools (local/mail, local/mail/shire.net,
local/mail/shire.net/o, local/jailextras/shire.net/irsfl, et
25 matches
Mail list logo
