Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

So you better post the nice and clean zfs error message that you got on your screen, instead of posting about things that you might ignore. To give the correct information, leads to your correct solution. In your case possible, the patchlevel, or /format -e/ issue. Think about it ! milosz schri

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import hangs

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Brad Reese wrote: > Yes, you may access the system via ssh. Please contact me at bar001 at uark > dot > edu and I will reply with details of how to connect. ...and then please tell us what was wrong! :-) -- Kind regards, BM Things, that are stupid at the begin

Re: [zfs-discuss] v440 - root mirror lost after LU

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 05:58:00PM -0600, Lori Alt wrote: First: Thanx a lot, Lori for the quick help!!! > On 06/16/09 16:32, Jens Elkner wrote: > >At the evening the faulty disk was replaced and the mirror resilvered via > >'zpool replace rpool c1t1d0s0' (see below). Since there was no error a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Lots of metadata overhead on filesystems with 100M files

Another question worth asking here is, is a find over the entire filesystem something that they would expect to be executed with sufficient regularity that it the execution time would have a business impact. Part of teh problem that I come across with people "benchmarking" is that they don't be

Re: [zfs-discuss] Lots of metadata overhead on filesystems with 100M files

Hi Jose, Enable SSD (cache device usage) only for "meta data" would help?. Assuming that you have read optimized SSD in place. I never try it out but worth to try by just turn on. regards, Paisit W. Jose Martins wrote: Hello experts, IHAC that wants to put more than 250 Million files on a

[zfs-discuss] moving a disk between controllers

Is there a problem with moving drives from one controller to another that my googlefu is not turning up? I had a system with it's boot drive attached to a backplane which worked fine. I tried moving that drive to the onboard controller and a few seconds into booting it would just reboot. Performin

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

Dennis is correct in that there are significant areas where 32-bit systems will remain the norm for some time to come. And choosing a 32-bit system in these areas is completely correct. That said, I think the issue is that (unlike Linux), Solaris is NOT a super-duper-plays-in-all-possible-spac

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import hangs

Hi Victor, Yes, you may access the system via ssh. Please contact me at bar001 at uark dot edu and I will reply with details of how to connect. Thanks, Brad -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensola

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

> Not a ZFS bug. [SMI vs EFI labels vs BIOS booting] and so also only a problem for disks that are members of the root pool. ie, I can have >1Tb disks as part of a non-bootable data pool, with EFI labels, on a 32-bit machine? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Miles Nordin wrote: > What have you done to try to reproduce the problem? P.S. I've read that Slashdot article and all the comments and even replied some. Plus, I've actually tried to reproduce few things that they vaguely are able to describe. No failures so far.

Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Miles Nordin wrote: > What have you done to try to reproduce the problem? Well, if you had posted here steps that fails for you and I missed this, then I am sorry, I would like to get this somewhere from archive and try. However, please don't get me wrong: no ad h

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Neal Pollack wrote: > Not sure I understand all this concern.  32 bit can use 1.0 TB disks as data > drives. ZFS can use more than 1 disk.  So if you hook up 48 of the 1.0 TB > disks > using ZFS on a 32 bit system, where is the problem? +1. Even if someone needs

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, roland wrote: > >> so, we have a 128bit fs, but only support for 1tb on 32bit? >> >> i`d call that a bug, isn`t it ? is there a bugid for this? ;) > > I'd say the bug in this instance is using a 32-bit platform in 2009! :-) Rich, a lot of embedded industrial solutions are

Re: [zfs-discuss] v440 - root mirror lost after LU

On 06/16/09 16:32, Jens Elkner wrote: Hmmm, just upgraded some servers to U7. Unfortunately one server's primary disk died during the upgrade, so that luactivate was not able to activate the s10u7 BE ("Unable to determine the configuration ..."). Since the rpool is a 2-way mirror, the boot-devic

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

roland wrote: so, we have a 128bit fs, but only support for 1tb on 32bit? i`d call that a bug, isn`t it ? is there a bugid for this? ;) Not a ZFS bug. IIRC, the story goes something like this: a SMI label only works to 1 TByte, so to use > 1 TByte, you need an EFI label. For older x86 sy

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

On 06/16/09 03:22 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 03:16:09PM -0700, milosz wrote: yeah i pretty much agree with you on this. the fact that no one has brought this up before is a pretty good indication of the demand. there are about 1000 things i'd rather see fixed/improved

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, ESX ,and NFS. oh my!

On Jun 16, 2009, at 17:47, Scott Meilicke wrote: I think (don't quote me) that ESX can only mount 64 iSCSI targets, so you aren't much better off. But, COMSTAR (2009.06) exports a single iSCSI target with multiple LUNs, so that gets around the limitation. I could be all wet on this one, how

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 04:25:58PM -0700, Toby Thain wrote: > > On 16-Jun-09, at 6:22 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 03:16:09PM -0700, milosz wrote: > >> yeah i pretty much agree with you on this. the fact that no one has > >> brought this up before is a pretty good indi

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

On 16-Jun-09, at 6:22 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 03:16:09PM -0700, milosz wrote: yeah i pretty much agree with you on this. the fact that no one has brought this up before is a pretty good indication of the demand. there are about 1000 things i'd rather see fixed/improv

[zfs-discuss] v440 - root mirror lost after LU

Hmmm, just upgraded some servers to U7. Unfortunately one server's primary disk died during the upgrade, so that luactivate was not able to activate the s10u7 BE ("Unable to determine the configuration ..."). Since the rpool is a 2-way mirror, the boot-device=/p...@1f,70/s...@2/d...@1,0:a was

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 03:16:09PM -0700, milosz wrote: > yeah i pretty much agree with you on this. the fact that no one has > brought this up before is a pretty good indication of the demand. > there are about 1000 things i'd rather see fixed/improved than max > disk size on a 32bit platform. I

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

yeah i pretty much agree with you on this. the fact that no one has brought this up before is a pretty good indication of the demand. there are about 1000 things i'd rather see fixed/improved than max disk size on a 32bit platform. On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Neal Pollack wrote: > On 06/16/0

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, roland wrote: > so, we have a 128bit fs, but only support for 1tb on 32bit? > > i`d call that a bug, isn`t it ? is there a bugid for this? ;) I'd say the bug in this instance is using a 32-bit platform in 2009! :-) -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA URLs: http://www.rite-

Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?

> "bmm" == Bogdan M Maryniuk writes: bmm> but all the time when yet another slashdotter (read: teenager) bmm> screams the comments about data loss were mostly quoting this list. And some of the posters have said ``I'm losing a lot more ZFS pools than UFS and VxFS filesystems on my FC

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

On 06/16/09 02:39 PM, roland wrote: so, we have a 128bit fs, but only support for 1tb on 32bit? i`d call that a bug, isn`t it ? is there a bugid for this? ;) Well, opinion is welcome. I'd call it an RFE. With 64 bit versions of the CPU chips so inexpensive these days, how much money do yo

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, ESX ,and NFS. oh my!

I actually prefer nfs for right now. We had an issue with iscsi where we lost some data and were unable to recover it due to solaris not being able to read propriatory vmfs. -- HUGE David Stahl Systems Administrator 718 233 9164 / F 718 625 5157 www.hugeinc.com > From:

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, ESX ,and NFS. oh my!

My testing with 2008.11 iSCSI vs NFS was that iSCSI was about 2x faster. I used a 3 stripe 5 disk raidz (15 1.5TB sata disks). I just used the default zil, no SSD or similar to make NFS faster. I think (don't quote me) that ESX can only mount 64 iSCSI targets, so you aren't much better off. But

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, ESX ,and NFS. oh my!

HUGE | David Stahl wrote: That is a very interesting idea Ryan. Not as ideal as I hoped, but does open up a way of maximizing my amount of vm guests. Thanks for that suggestion. Also if I added another subnet and another vmkernel would I be allowed another 32 nfs mounts? So is it 32 nfs mounts p

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

so, we have a 128bit fs, but only support for 1tb on 32bit? i`d call that a bug, isn`t it ? is there a bugid for this? ;) -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/m

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, ESX ,and NFS. oh my!

That is a very interesting idea Ryan. Not as ideal as I hoped, but does open up a way of maximizing my amount of vm guests. Thanks for that suggestion. Also if I added another subnet and another vmkernel would I be allowed another 32 nfs mounts? So is it 32 nfs mounts per vmkernel or 32 nfs mounts

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, ESX ,and NFS. oh my!

Try iSCSI? -- 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] ZFS, ESX ,and NFS. oh my!

HUGE | David Stahl wrote: I'm curious if anyone else has run into this problem, and if so, what solutions they use to get around it. We are using Vmware Esxi servers with an Opensolaris NFS backend. This allows us to leverage all the awesomeness of ZFS, including the snapshots and clones. The

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

yeah, i get a nice clean zfs error message about disk size limits when i try to add the disk. On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:26 PM, roland wrote: >>the only problems i've run into are: slow (duh) and will not >>take disks that are bigger than 1tb > > do you think that 1tb limit is due to 32bit solaris

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

>the only problems i've run into are: slow (duh) and will not >take disks that are bigger than 1tb do you think that 1tb limit is due to 32bit solaris ? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.or

[zfs-discuss] ZFS, ESX ,and NFS. oh my!

I'm curious if anyone else has run into this problem, and if so, what solutions they use to get around it. We are using Vmware Esxi servers with an Opensolaris NFS backend. This allows us to leverage all the awesomeness of ZFS, including the snapshots and clones. The best feature of this is we ca

Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation

On Tue, June 16, 2009 15:32, Kyle McDonald wrote: > So the cache saves not only the time to access the disk but also the CPU > time to decompress. Given this, I think it could be a big win. Unless you're in GIMP working on JPEGs, or doing some kind of MPEG video editing--or ripping audio (MP3 / A

Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation

Darren J Moffat wrote: Kyle McDonald wrote: Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Thommy M. wrote: In most cases compression is not desireable. It consumes CPU and results in uneven system performance. IIRC there was a blog about I/O performance with ZFS stating that it was faster

[zfs-discuss] Using single SSD for l2arc on multiple pools?

Hello, I'm curious if it is possible to use a single SSD for the l2arc for multiple pools? I'm guessing that I can break the SSD into multiple slices and assign a slice as a cache device in each pool. That doesn't seem very flexible though, so I was wondering if there is another way to do th

Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation

Monish Shah wrote: Hello, I would like to add one more point to this. Everyone seems to agree that compression is useful for reducing load on the disks and the disagreement is about the impact on CPU utilization, right? What about when the compression is performed in dedicated hardware? Sh

Re: [zfs-discuss] zio_taskq_threads and TXG sync

wow, that hasn't been a recognized problem since this past april? i've been seeing it for a -long- time. i think i first reported it back in december. are people actively working on it? On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Marcelo Leal wrote: > Hello all, >  I'm trying to understand the ZFS IO sche

Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation

Kyle McDonald wrote: Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Thommy M. wrote: In most cases compression is not desireable. It consumes CPU and results in uneven system performance. IIRC there was a blog about I/O performance with ZFS stating that it was faster with compression ON as it

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import hangs

On 16.06.09 07:57, Brad Reese wrote: Hi Victor, 'zdb -e -bcsv -t 2435913 tank' ran for about a week with no output. We had yet another brown out and then the comp shut down (have a UPS on the way). A few days before that I started the following commands, which also had no output: zdb -e -bcsv

[zfs-discuss] zio_taskq_threads and TXG sync

Hello all, I'm trying to understand the ZFS IO scheduler ( http://www.eall.com.br/blog/?p=1170 ), and why sometimes the system seems to be "stalled" for some seconds, and every application that needs some IO (most read, i think), have serious problems. What can be a big problem in iSCSI or NFS

Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Thommy M. wrote: In most cases compression is not desireable. It consumes CPU and results in uneven system performance. IIRC there was a blog about I/O performance with ZFS stating that it was faster with compression ON as it didn't have to wait fo

Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rich Teer wrote: You actually have that backwards. :-) In most cases, compression is very desirable. Performance studies have shown that today's CPUs can compress data faster than it takes for the uncompressed data to be read

Re: [zfs-discuss] clones and sub-datasets

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Todd Stansell wrote: Any thoughts on how this can be done? I do have other systems I can use to test this procedure, but ideally it would not introduce any downtime, but that can be arranged if necessary. I think the only work-around is to re-promote 'data', destroy the

Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Thommy M. wrote: In most cases compression is not desireable. It consumes CPU and results in uneven system performance. IIRC there was a blog about I/O performance with ZFS stating that it was faster with compression ON as i

Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation

Hello, I would like to add one more point to this. Everyone seems to agree that compression is useful for reducing load on the disks and the disagreement is about the impact on CPU utilization, right? What about when the compression is performed in dedicated hardware? Shouldn't compression b

Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?

Hi, If there are complaints, what should SUN do? Should the complaints be taken seriously or not? Customer complaints are ALWAYS taken serious by SUN, and more than that, with those kind of statements Bugs could be traced, problems resolved and so far filesystem -ZFS- could be improved. Takin

Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?

I totally agree with you. I am just concerned about ZFS' reputation. If there are complaints, what should SUN do? Should the complaints be taken seriously or not? Me love ZFS, and I dont want it to loose it's credibility. BTW, ZFS rocks. Hard. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org __

Re: [zfs-discuss] Asymmetric mirroring

Monish Shah wrote: The other alternative is to modify ZFS to compress L2ARC, but that sounds much more complicated to me. Any insights from ZFS developers would be appreciated. Compressing the L2ARC data shouldn't be that hard, I had to do something very similar for adding

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?

>Ive asked the same question about 32bit. I created a thread and asked. > It were something like "does 32bit ZFS fragments RAM?" or something similar. >As I remember it, 32 bit had some issues. Mostly due to RAM fragmentation or >something similar. The result was that you had to restart your serve