> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
>
> So here's what I'm going to do. With arc_meta_limit at 7680M, of which
> 100M
> was consumed "naturally," that leaves me 7580 to play with. Call it
7500M.
> Divide by 41
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On 05/31/11 09:01, Anonymous wrote:
>> Hi. I have a development system on Intel commodity hardware with a 500G ZFS
>> root mirror. I have another 500G drive same as the other two. Is there any
>> way to use this disk to good advantage in thi
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 05:45:14AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
> Also, in a mirroring scenario is there any good reason to keep a warm spare
> instead of making a three-way mirror right away (beside energy saving)?
> Rebuild times and non-redundant windows can be decreased considerably ;)
Perhaps wh
Thomas,
You can consider the DataON DNS-1600(4U 24 3.5" Bay 6Gb/s SAS JBOD). It is
perfect for ZFS storage as the alternative of J4400.
http://dataonstorage.com/dns-1600
And we recommend you to use native SAS HD like Seagate Constellation ES 2TB
SAS to connect 2 hosts for fail-over cluster
> If it is powered on, then it is a warm spare :-)
> Warm spares are a good idea. For some platforms, you can
> spin down the
> disk so it doesn't waste energy.
But I should note that we've had issues with a hot spare disk added to rpool
in particular, preventing boots on Solaris 10u8. It turn
On May 31, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> Namely, leave the third drive on the shelf as a cold spare, and use
> the third sata connector for an ssd, as L2ARC, ZIL or even possibly
> both (which will affect selection of which device to use).
If it is powered on, then it is a warm spare
> What about writes?
Writes in a mirror are deemed to be not faster than the slowest disk -
all two or three drives must commit a block before it is considered
written (in sync write mode), likewise for TXG sync but with some
optimization by caching and write-coalescing.
//Jim
_
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 05:32:47PM +0100, Matt Keenan wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Thanks for the response, I've nearly got it working, coming up against a
> hostid issue.
>
> Here's the steps I'm going through :
>
> - At end of auto-install, on the client just installed before I manually
> reboot I do th
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:16:28AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 06:57:53PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > If you make it a 3-way mirror, your write performance will be unaffected,
> > but your read performance will increase 50% over a 2-way mirror. All 3
> > drives
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 06:57:53PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> If you make it a 3-way mirror, your write performance will be unaffected,
> but your read performance will increase 50% over a 2-way mirror. All 3
> drives can read different data simultaneously for the net effect of 3x a
> singl
On 05/31/11 09:01, Anonymous wrote:
> Hi. I have a development system on Intel commodity hardware with a 500G ZFS
> root mirror. I have another 500G drive same as the other two. Is there any
> way to use this disk to good advantage in this box? I don't think I need any
> more redundancy, I would li
On May 31, 2011, at 19:00, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
>>
>> Theoretically, you'll get a 50% read increase, but I doubt it'll be that
>> high in
>> practice.
What about
On Tue, 31 May 2011, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
If you make it a 3-way mirror, your write performance will be unaffected,
but your read performance will increase 50% over a 2-way mirror. All 3
drives can read different data simultaneously for the net effect of 3x a
single disk read performance.
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
>
> Theoretically, you'll get a 50% read increase, but I doubt it'll be that high
> in
> practice.
In my benchmarking, I found 2-way mirror reads 1.97x the speed of a sing
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Anonymous
>
> Hi. I have a development system on Intel commodity hardware with a 500G
> ZFS
> root mirror. I have another 500G drive same as the other two. Is there any
> way to use this disk t
On 31 May, 2011 - Gertjan Oude Lohuis sent me these 0,9K bytes:
> On 05/31/2011 03:52 PM, Tomas Ögren wrote:
>> I've done a not too scientific test on reboot times for Solaris 10 vs 11
>> with regard to many filesystems...
>>
>
>> http://www8.cs.umu.se/~stric/tmp/zfs-many.png
>>
>> As the picture
On May 31, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Gertjan Oude Lohuis wrote:
> On 05/31/2011 03:52 PM, Tomas Ögren wrote:
>> I've done a not too scientific test on reboot times for Solaris 10 vs 11
>> with regard to many filesystems...
>>
>
>> http://www8.cs.umu.se/~stric/tmp/zfs-many.png
>>
>> As the picture shows
On 05/31/2011 12:26 PM, Khushil Dep wrote:
Generally snapshots are quick operations but 10,000 such operations
would I believe take enough to time to complete as to present
operational issues - breaking these into sets would alleviate some?
Perhaps if you are starting to run into many thousands o
On 05/31/2011 03:52 PM, Tomas Ögren wrote:
I've done a not too scientific test on reboot times for Solaris 10 vs 11
with regard to many filesystems...
http://www8.cs.umu.se/~stric/tmp/zfs-many.png
As the picture shows, don't try 1 filesystems with nfs on sol10.
Creating more filesystems
I've written a possible solution using svc-system-config SMF where on
first boot it will import -f a specified list of pools, and it does
work, I was hoping to find a cleaner solution via zpool.cache... but if
there's no way to achieve it I guess I'll have to stick with the other
solution.
I
> Hi. I have a development system on Intel commodity hardware with a
> 500G ZFS
> root mirror. I have another 500G drive same as the other two. Is there
> any
> way to use this disk to good advantage in this box? I don't think I
> need any
> more redundancy, I would like to increase performance if
> Hi. I have a development system on Intel commodity hardware with
> a 500G ZFS
> root mirror. I have another 500G drive same as the other two. Is
> there any
> way to use this disk to good advantage in this box? I don't
> think I need any
> more redundancy, I would like to increase performance
Alas, I have some notes on the subject of migration from UFS to ZFS
with split filesystems (separate /usr /var and some /var/* subdirs), but
they are an unpublished document in Russian ;) Here I will outline some
main points, but will probably have omitted some others :(
Hope this helps anyway...
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Tomas Ögren wrote:
>
> On a different setup, we have about 750 datasets where we would like to
> use a single recursive snapshot, but when doing that all file access
> will be frozen for varying amounts of time (sometimes half an hour or
> way more). Splitting it
Hi. I have a development system on Intel commodity hardware with a 500G ZFS
root mirror. I have another 500G drive same as the other two. Is there any
way to use this disk to good advantage in this box? I don't think I need any
more redundancy, I would like to increase performance if possible. I ha
Actually if you need beadm to "know" about the data pool,
it might be beneficial to mix both approaches - yours with
bemount, and init-script to enforce the pool import on that
first boot...
HTH,
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss
if the
conditions were "right".
My FreeRAM-Watchdog code and compiled i386 binary and a
primitive SMF service wrapper can be found here:
http://thumper.cos.ru/~jim/freeram-watchdog-20110531-smf.tgz
Other related forum threads:
* zpool import hangs indefinitely (retry post in parts;
I should have seen that coming, but didn't ;)
I think in ths case I would go with a different approach: don't
import the data pool in the AI instance and save it to zpool.cache
Instead, make sure it is cleanly exported from AI instance, and
in the installed system create a self-destructing init s
In general, you may need to keep data in one dataset if it is somehow
related (i.e. backup of a specific machine or program, a user's home, etc)
and if you plan to manage it in a consistent manner. For example, CIFS
shares can not be nested, so for a unitary share (like "distribs") you would
proba
Jim,
Thanks for the response, I've nearly got it working, coming up against a
hostid issue.
Here's the steps I'm going through :
- At end of auto-install, on the client just installed before I manually
reboot I do the following :
$ beadm mount solaris /a
$ zpool export data
$ zpool im
On Tue, May 31 at 8:52, Paul Kraus wrote:
When we initially configured a large (20TB) files server about 5
years ago, we went with multiple zpools and multiple datasets (zfs) in
each zpool. Currently we have 17 zpools and about 280 datasets.
Nowhere near the 10,000+ you intend. We are moving
Gertjan,
In addition to the comments directly relating from your post, we have
had similar discussions previously on the zfs-discuss list.
If you care to go and review the list archives, I can share that we have
had similar discussions on at least the following time periods.
March 2006
May 2008
On 29/05/2011 19:55, BIll Palin wrote:
I'm migrating some filesystems from UFS to ZFS and I'm not sure how to create a
couple of them.
I want to migrate /, /var, /opt, /export/home and also want swap and /tmp. I
don't care about any of the others.
The first disk, and the one with the UFS fil
Hi There,
I need to import an corrupted ZPOOL after double-Crash (Mainboard and one HDD)
on a different system.
It is a RAIDZ1 - 3 HDDs - only 2 are working.
Problem: spool import -f poolname runs and runs and runs. Looking after iostat
(not zpool iostat) it is doing something - but what?
I'm migrating some filesystems from UFS to ZFS and I'm not sure how to create a
couple of them.
I want to migrate /, /var, /opt, /export/home and also want swap and /tmp. I
don't care about any of the others.
The first disk, and the one with the UFS filesystems, is c0t0d0 and the 2nd
disk is
On 31 May, 2011 - Khushil Dep sent me these 4,5K bytes:
> The adage that I adhere to with ZFS features is "just because you can
> doesn't mean you should!". I would suspect that with that many
> filesystems the normal zfs-tools would also take an inordinate length
> of time to complete their opera
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:08 AM, Gertjan Oude Lohuis
wrote:
> "Filesystem are cheap" is one of ZFS's mottos. I'm wondering how far
> this goes. Does anyone have experience with having more than 10.000 ZFS
> filesystems? I know that mounting this many filesystems during boot
> while take considera
Interesting, although makes sense ;)
Now, I wonder about reliability (with large 2-3Tb drives
and long scrub/resilver/replace times): say I have 12 drives
in my box.
I can lay them out as 4*3-disk raidz1, 3*4-disk-raidz1
or a 1*12-disk raidz3 with nearly the same capacity (8-9
data disks plus
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Marty Scholes wrote:
> For what it's worth, I ran a 22 disk home array as a single RAIDZ3 vdev
> (19+3)for several
> months and it was fine. These days I run a 32 disk array laid out as four
> vdevs, each an
> 8 disk RAIDZ2, i.e. 4x 6+2.
I tested 40 drives
> The volume is exported as whole disk. When given whole disk, zpool
> creates GPT partition table by default. You need to pass the partition
> (not the disk) to zdb.
Yes, that is what seems to be the problem.
However, for the zfs volumes (/dev/zvol/rdsk/pool/dcpool) there seems
to be no concept o
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> However it seems that there may be some extra data beside the zfs
> pool in the actual volume (I'd at least expect an MBR or GPT, and
> maybe some iSCSI service data as an overhead). One way or another,
> the "dcpool" can not be found in the phy
I have a oi_148a test box with a pool on physical HDDs, a volume in
this pool shared over iSCSI with explicit commands (sbdadm and such),
and this iSCSI target is initiated by the same box. In the resulting iSCSI
device I have another ZFS pool "dcpool".
Recently I found the iSCSI part to be a pote
The adage that I adhere to with ZFS features is "just because you can doesn't
mean you should!". I would suspect that with that many filesystems the normal
zfs-tools would also take an inordinate length of time to complete their
operations - scale according to size.
Generally snapshots are quic
So, if I may, is this the correct summary of the answer to original
question (on JBOD for a ZFS HA cluster):
===
SC847E26-RJBOD1 with dual-ported SAS drives are known
to work in a failover HA storage scenario, allowing both servers
(HBAs) access to each single SAS drive individually, so zp
"Filesystem are cheap" is one of ZFS's mottos. I'm wondering how far
this goes. Does anyone have experience with having more than 10.000 ZFS
filesystems? I know that mounting this many filesystems during boot
while take considerable time. Are there any other disadvantages that I
should be aware of?
45 matches
Mail list logo
