Re: [zfs-discuss] New SSD options

2010-05-20 Thread Ragnar Sundblad
On 20 maj 2010, at 00.20, Don wrote: You can lose all writes from the last committed transaction (i.e., the one before the currently open transaction). And I don't think that bothers me. As long as the array itself doesn't go belly up- then a few seconds of lost transactions are largely

[zfs-discuss] root pool mirror problems

2010-05-20 Thread roi shidlovsky
hi. i am trying to attach a mirror disk to my root pool. if the two disk are the same size.. it all works fine, but if the two disks are with different size (8GB and 7.5GB) i get a I/O error on the attach command. can anybody tell me what am i doing wrong? -- This message posted from

Re: [zfs-discuss] root pool mirror problems

2010-05-20 Thread Ian Collins
On 05/20/10 08:39 PM, roi shidlovsky wrote: hi. i am trying to attach a mirror disk to my root pool. if the two disk are the same size.. it all works fine, but if the two disks are with different size (8GB and 7.5GB) i get a I/O error on the attach command. can anybody tell me what am i doing

Re: [zfs-discuss] root pool mirror problems

2010-05-20 Thread Matt Keenan
As queried by Ian, the new disk being attached must be at least as big as the original root pool disk. It can be bigger, but the difference will not be used in the mirroring. cheers Matt On 05/20/10 10:11 AM, Ian Collins wrote: On 05/20/10 08:39 PM, roi shidlovsky wrote: hi. i am trying to

Re: [zfs-discuss] root pool mirror problems

2010-05-20 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
- roi shidlovsky roi.shidlov...@ecitele.com skrev: hi. i am trying to attach a mirror disk to my root pool. if the two disk are the same size.. it all works fine, but if the two disks are with different size (8GB and 7.5GB) i get a I/O error on the attach command. can anybody tell me

Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation

2010-05-20 Thread Philippe
One question : if I halt the server, and change the order of the disks on the SATA array, will RAIDZ still detect the array fine Yes, it will. Hi ! I've done the moves this morning, and the high service times followed the disks ! So, I have 3 disks to replace urgently !! I'm

Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation

2010-05-20 Thread Philippe
I'm starting with the replacement of the very bad disk, and hope the resilvering won't take too long !! Replacing c7t2d0, I get the following : NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM zfs_raid DEGRADED 0 0 0 raidz1 DEGRADED 0

Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation

2010-05-20 Thread Philippe
Current status : pool: zfs_raid state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices is currently being resilvered. The pool will continue to function, possibly in a degraded state. action: Wait for the resilver to complete. scrub: resilver in progress for 0h17m, 3,72% done, 7h22m to go

[zfs-discuss] zfs question

2010-05-20 Thread Mihai
hello all, I have the following scenario of using zfs. - I have a HDD images that has a NTFS partition stored in a zfs dataset in a file called images.img - I have X physical machines that boot from my server via iSCSI from such an image - Every time a machine ask for a boot request from my

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs question

2010-05-20 Thread Andrew Gabriel
Mihai wrote: hello all, I have the following scenario of using zfs. - I have a HDD images that has a NTFS partition stored in a zfs dataset in a file called images.img - I have X physical machines that boot from my server via iSCSI from such an image - Every time a machine ask for a boot

Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation

2010-05-20 Thread Edward Ned Harvey
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Philippe c7t2d0s0/o FAULTED 0 0 0 corrupted data When I've done the zpool replace, I had to add -f to force, because ZFS told that these was a ZFS label on the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation

2010-05-20 Thread Richard Elling
On May 20, 2010, at 4:12 AM, Philippe wrote: I'm starting with the replacement of the very bad disk, and hope the resilvering won't take too long !! Replacing c7t2d0, I get the following : NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM zfs_raid DEGRADED 0 0

Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation

2010-05-20 Thread Richard Elling
On May 20, 2010, at 4:46 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Philippe c7t2d0s0/o FAULTED 0 0 0 corrupted data When I've done the zpool replace, I had to add -f to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation

2010-05-20 Thread Richard Elling
On May 20, 2010, at 4:24 AM, Philippe wrote: Current status : pool: zfs_raid state: DEGRADED status: One or more devices is currently being resilvered. The pool will continue to function, possibly in a degraded state. action: Wait for the resilver to complete. scrub: resilver in

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs question

2010-05-20 Thread Edward Ned Harvey
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Gabriel If you are reading blocks from your initial hdd images (golden images) frequently enough, and you have enough memory on your system, these blocks will end up on the ARC

Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation

2010-05-20 Thread Philippe
Any idea ? action: Wait for the resilver to complete. -- richard Very fine ! And thank you a lot for your answers ! Philippe -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs question

2010-05-20 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
- Mihai imcu@gmail.com skrev: hello all, I have the following scenario of using zfs. - I have a HDD images that has a NTFS partition stored in a zfs dataset in a file called images.img Wouldn't it be better to use zfs volumes? AFAIK they are way faster than using files Vennlige

Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation

2010-05-20 Thread Darren J Moffat
On 20/05/2010 12:46, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: Also, since you've got s0 on there, it means you've got some partitions on that drive. There are always partitions once the disk is in use by ZFS, but there may be 1 or more of them and they maybe SMI or EFI partitions. So just because there is

[zfs-discuss] reconstruct recovery of rpool zpool and zfs file system with bad sectors

2010-05-20 Thread Rob Levy
Folks I posted this question on (OpenSolaris - Help) without any replies http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=129436tstart=0 and am re-posting here in the hope someone can help ... I have updated the wording a little too (in an attempt to clarify) I currently use OpenSolaris on a

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs mount -a kernel panic

2010-05-20 Thread Mark J Musante
On Wed, 19 May 2010, John Andrunas wrote: ff001f45e830 unix:die+dd () ff001f45e940 unix:trap+177b () ff001f45e950 unix:cmntrap+e6 () ff001f45ea50 zfs:ddt_phys_decref+c () ff001f45ea80 zfs:zio_ddt_free+55 () ff001f45eab0 zfs:zio_execute+8d () ff001f45eb50

Re: [zfs-discuss] dedup status

2010-05-20 Thread George Wilson
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: Hi all I've been doing a lot of testing with dedup and concluded it's not really ready for production. If something fails, it can render the pool unuseless for hours or maybe days, perhaps due to single-threded stuff in zfs. There is also very little data

Re: [zfs-discuss] Very serious performance degradation

2010-05-20 Thread Mark J Musante
On Thu, 20 May 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: Also, since you've got s0 on there, it means you've got some partitions on that drive. You could manually wipe all that out via format, but the above is pretty brainless and reliable. The s0 on the old disk is a bug in the way we're formatting

Re: [zfs-discuss] root pool mirror problems

2010-05-20 Thread Cindy Swearingen
Hi Roi, You need equivalent sized disks for a mirrored pool. When you attempt to attach a disk that is too small, you will see a message similar to the following: cannot attach c1t3d0 to c1t2d0: device is too small In general, an I/O error message means that the partition slice is not

Re: [zfs-discuss] reconstruct recovery of rpool zpool and zfs file system with bad sectors

2010-05-20 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
- Rob Levy rob.l...@oracle.com skrev: Folks I posted this question on (OpenSolaris - Help) without any replies http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=129436tstart=0 and am re-posting here in the hope someone can help ... I have updated the wording a little too (in an attempt to

[zfs-discuss] Interesting experience with Nexenta - anyone seen it?

2010-05-20 Thread Kyle McDonald
Hi all, I recently installed Nexenta Community 3.0.2 on one of my servers: IBM eSeries X346 2.8Ghz Xeon 12GB DDR2 RAM 1 builtin BGE interface for management 4 port Intel GigE card aggregated for Data IBM ServRAID 7k with 256MB BB Cache with (isp driver) 6 RAID0 single drive LUNS (so I can use

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs question

2010-05-20 Thread Erik Trimble
Edward Ned Harvey wrote: But one more thing: If I'm not mistaken, L2ARC cached blocks will not get striped across more than one device in your L2ARC, which means your L2ARC only helps for latency, and not throughput. (I'm really not certain about this, but I think so.) Given the stated usage

Re: [zfs-discuss] Interesting experience with Nexenta - anyone seen it?

2010-05-20 Thread Erast
Hi Kyle, very likely that you hit driver bug in isp. After the reboot, take a look on /var/adm/messages file - anything related might shed some light. I wouldn't suspect Intel GigE card - fairly good one and driver is very stable. Also, some upgrades posted, make sure the kernel displays

[zfs-discuss] zfs recordsize change improves performance

2010-05-20 Thread Asif Iqbal
I have a T2000 with a dual port 4gb hba (QLE2462) and a 3510FC with one controller 2gb/s attached to it. I am running sol 10 u3 . every time I change the recordsize of the zfs fs the disk IO improves (doubles) and stay like that for about 5 to 6 hrs. Then it dies down. I increase the recordsize

Re: [zfs-discuss] Interesting experience with Nexenta - anyone seen it?

2010-05-20 Thread Travis Tabbal
Disable ZIL and test again. NFS does a lot of sync writes and kills performance. Disabling ZIL (or using the synchronicity option if a build with that ever comes out) will prevent that behavior, and should get your NFS performance close to local. It's up to you if you want to leave it that way.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Interesting experience with Nexenta - anyone seen it?

2010-05-20 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
- Travis Tabbal tra...@tabbal.net skrev: Disable ZIL and test again. NFS does a lot of sync writes and kills performance. Disabling ZIL (or using the synchronicity option if a build with that ever comes out) will prevent that behavior, and should get your NFS performance close to local.

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs recordsize change improves performance

2010-05-20 Thread Asif Iqbal
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Asif Iqbal vad...@gmail.com wrote: I have a T2000 with a dual port 4gb hba (QLE2462) and a 3510FC with one controller 2gb/s attached to it. I am running sol 10 u3 . every time I change the recordsize of the zfs fs the disk IO improves (doubles) and stay like

Re: [zfs-discuss] New SSD options

2010-05-20 Thread Travis Tabbal
On May 19, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Don wrote: The data risk is a few moments of data loss. However, if the order of the uberblock updates is not preserved (which is why the caches are flushed) then recovery from a reboot may require manual intervention. The amount of manual intervention could

Re: [zfs-discuss] Interesting experience with Nexenta - anyone seen it?

2010-05-20 Thread David Magda
On Thu, May 20, 2010 13:58, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: - Travis Tabbal tra...@tabbal.net skrev: Disable ZIL and test again. NFS does a lot of sync writes and kills performance. Disabling ZIL (or using the synchronicity option if a build with that ever comes out) will prevent that

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs question

2010-05-20 Thread Darren J Moffat
If I'm not mistaken, L2ARC cached blocks will not get striped across more than one device in your L2ARC, which means your L2ARC only helps for latency, and not throughput. Regardless of wither it does or not it can still help overall system throughput by avoiding having to read from slower

[zfs-discuss] don't mount a zpool on boot

2010-05-20 Thread John Andrunas
Can I make a pool not mount on boot? I seem to recall reading somewhere how to do it, but can't seem to find it now. -- John ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] don't mount a zpool on boot

2010-05-20 Thread Erik Trimble
John Andrunas wrote: Can I make a pool not mount on boot? I seem to recall reading somewhere how to do it, but can't seem to find it now. You can't do this at a pool level, but you can at a zfs/zvol level. to prevent a filesystem or vol from being mounted at boot: zfs set canmount=no

[zfs-discuss] zfs unmount returns with Invalid Argument

2010-05-20 Thread nich romero
Anyone have any idea on this. I wanted to separate out my VirtualBox VDIs so that I could activate compression on the rest of the parent directory structure so I created a ZFS filesystem under my user directory. mv .VirtualBox .VirtualBox_orig zfs create /export/home/user/.VirtualBox zfs

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS memory recommendations

2010-05-20 Thread Miles Nordin
et == Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com writes: et No, you're reading that blog right - dedup is on a per-pool et basis. The way I'm reading that blog is that deduped data is expaned in the ARC. pgpozjcLXZlNV.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [zfs-discuss] New SSD options

2010-05-20 Thread Ragnar Sundblad
On 20 maj 2010, at 20.35, David Magda wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 14:12, Travis Tabbal wrote: On May 19, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Don wrote: The data risk is a few moments of data loss. However, if the order of the uberblock updates is not preserved (which is why the caches are flushed) then

Re: [zfs-discuss] don't mount a zpool on boot

2010-05-20 Thread Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
- John Andrunas j...@andrunas.net skrev: Can I make a pool not mount on boot? I seem to recall reading somewhere how to do it, but can't seem to find it now. I guess saying zfs mountpoint=legcy will help this, but still, that's for the dataset, not the pool Vennlige hilsener / Best

Re: [zfs-discuss] New SSD options

2010-05-20 Thread Miles Nordin
d == Don d...@blacksun.org writes: d Since it ignores Cache Flush command and it doesn't have any d persistant buffer storage, disabling the write cache is the d best you can do. This actually brings up another question I d had: What is the risk, beyond a few seconds of

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS memory recommendations

2010-05-20 Thread Erik Trimble
Miles Nordin wrote: et == Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com writes: et No, you're reading that blog right - dedup is on a per-pool et basis. The way I'm reading that blog is that deduped data is expaned in the ARC. What I think is being done is this: for pool A and

Re: [zfs-discuss] New SSD options

2010-05-20 Thread Bill Sommerfeld
On 05/20/10 12:26, Miles Nordin wrote: I don't know, though, what to do about these reports of devices that almost respect cache flushes but seem to lose exactly one transaction. AFAICT this should be a works/doesntwork situation, not a continuum. But there's so much brokenness out there.

[zfs-discuss] send/recv over ssh

2010-05-20 Thread Thomas Burgess
I know i'm probably doing something REALLY stupid.but for some reason i can't get send/recv to work over ssh. I just built a new media server and i'd like to move a few filesystem from my old server to my new server but for some reason i keep getting strange errors... At first i'd see

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/recv over ssh

2010-05-20 Thread Thomas Burgess
also, i forgot to say: one server is b133, the new one is b134 On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Thomas Burgess wonsl...@gmail.com wrote: I know i'm probably doing something REALLY stupid.but for some reason i can't get send/recv to work over ssh. I just built a new media server and

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/recv over ssh

2010-05-20 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 04:23:49PM -0400, Thomas Burgess wrote: I know i'm probably doing something REALLY stupid.but for some reason i can't get send/recv to work over ssh. I just built a new media server and i'd like to move a few filesystem from my old server to my new server but for

Re: [zfs-discuss] Interesting experience with Nexenta - anyone seen it?

2010-05-20 Thread Miles Nordin
rsk == Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk r...@karlsbakk.net writes: dm == David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca writes: tt == Travis Tabbal tra...@tabbal.net writes: rsk Disabling ZIL is, according to ZFS best practice, NOT rsk recommended. dm As mentioned, you do NOT want to run with this in

Re: [zfs-discuss] don't mount a zpool on boot

2010-05-20 Thread Tomas Ögren
On 20 May, 2010 - John Andrunas sent me these 0,3K bytes: Can I make a pool not mount on boot? I seem to recall reading somewhere how to do it, but can't seem to find it now. zpool export thatpool zpool import thatpool when you want it back. /Tomas -- Tomas Ögren, st...@acc.umu.se,

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs recordsize change improves performance

2010-05-20 Thread Asif Iqbal
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Asif Iqbal vad...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Asif Iqbal vad...@gmail.com wrote: I have a T2000 with a dual port 4gb hba (QLE2462) and a 3510FC with one controller 2gb/s attached to it. I am running sol 10 u3 . every time I change the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal SATA/SAS Controllers for ZFS

2010-05-20 Thread hugo Wilkinson
Deon Cui deon.cui at gmail.com writes: So I had a bunch of them lying around. We've bought a 16x SAS hotswap case and I've put in an AMD X4 955 BE with an ASUS M4A89GTD Pro as the mobo. In the two 16x PCI-E slots I've put in the 1068E controllers I had lying around. Everything

Re: [zfs-discuss] New SSD options

2010-05-20 Thread Travis Tabbal
use a slog at all if it's not durable? You should disable the ZIL instead. This is basically where I was going. There only seems to be one SSD that is considered working, the Zeus IOPS. Even if I had the money, I can't buy it. As my application is a home server, not a datacenter, things

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/recv over ssh

2010-05-20 Thread Brandon High
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Thomas Burgess wonsl...@gmail.com wrote: I know i'm probably doing something REALLY stupid.but for some reason i can't get send/recv to work over ssh.  I just built a new media server and Unless you need to have the send to be encrypted, ssh is going to slow

Re: [zfs-discuss] New SSD options

2010-05-20 Thread Ross Walker
On May 20, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Travis Tabbal tra...@tabbal.net wrote: use a slog at all if it's not durable? You should disable the ZIL instead. This is basically where I was going. There only seems to be one SSD that is considered working, the Zeus IOPS. Even if I had the money, I can't

Re: [zfs-discuss] New SSD options

2010-05-20 Thread Ragnar Sundblad
On 21 maj 2010, at 00.53, Ross Walker wrote: On May 20, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Travis Tabbal tra...@tabbal.net wrote: use a slog at all if it's not durable? You should disable the ZIL instead. This is basically where I was going. There only seems to be one SSD that is considered

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/recv over ssh

2010-05-20 Thread Brent Jones
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Thomas Burgess wonsl...@gmail.com wrote: I know i'm probably doing something REALLY stupid.but for some reason i can't get send/recv to work over ssh.  I just built a new media server and

Re: [zfs-discuss] Extremely slow raidz resilvering

2010-05-20 Thread Brandon High
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Leandro Vanden Bosch l.vbo...@gmail.com wrote: Confirmed then that the issue was with the WD10EARS. I swapped it out with the old one and things look a lot better: The problem with the EARS drive is that it was not 4k aligned. The solaris partition table was,

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs recordsize change improves performance

2010-05-20 Thread Richard Elling
On May 20, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Asif Iqbal wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Asif Iqbal vad...@gmail.com wrote: I have a T2000 with a dual port 4gb hba (QLE2462) and a 3510FC with one controller 2gb/s attached to it. I am running sol 10 u3 . every time I change the recordsize of the

Re: [zfs-discuss] New SSD options

2010-05-20 Thread Richard Elling
On May 20, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: On 05/20/10 12:26, Miles Nordin wrote: I don't know, though, what to do about these reports of devices that almost respect cache flushes but seem to lose exactly one transaction. AFAICT this should be a works/doesntwork situation, not a

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/recv over ssh

2010-05-20 Thread Freddie Cash
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Thomas Burgess wonsl...@gmail.com wrote: I know i'm probably doing something REALLY stupid.but for some reason

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs recordsize change improves performance

2010-05-20 Thread Asif Iqbal
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: On May 20, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Asif Iqbal wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Asif Iqbal vad...@gmail.com wrote: I have a T2000 with a dual port 4gb hba (QLE2462) and a 3510FC with one controller 2gb/s attached

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs recordsize change improves performance

2010-05-20 Thread Asif Iqbal
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: On May 20, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Asif Iqbal wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Asif Iqbal vad...@gmail.com wrote: I have a T2000 with a dual port 4gb hba (QLE2462) and a 3510FC with one controller 2gb/s attached

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs recordsize change improves performance

2010-05-20 Thread Richard Elling
On May 20, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Asif Iqbal wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: On May 20, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Asif Iqbal wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Asif Iqbal vad...@gmail.com wrote: I have a T2000 with a dual port 4gb hba

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/recv over ssh

2010-05-20 Thread Gaëtan Lehmann
Le 21 mai 10 à 02:44, Freddie Cash a écrit : On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Thomas Burgess wonsl...@gmail.com wrote: I know i'm probably doing

Re: [zfs-discuss] New SSD options

2010-05-20 Thread Don
So, IMHO, a cheap consumer ssd used as a zil may still be worth it (for some use cases) to narrow the window of data loss from ~30 seconds to a sub-second value. There are lots of reasons to enable the ZIL now- I can throw four very inexpensive SSD's in there now in a pair of mirrors, and then

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs recordsize change improves performance

2010-05-20 Thread Asif Iqbal
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: On May 20, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Asif Iqbal wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: On May 20, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Asif Iqbal wrote: On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:51 PM,