On 6/2/2011 5:12 PM, Jens Elkner wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 06:17:08PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:54 -0400, Paul Kraus wrote:
Here's how you calculate (average) how long a random IOPs takes:
seek time + ((60 / RPMs) / 2))]
A truly sequential IOPs is:
(60 / RPMs)
On Jun 2, 2011, at 20:50, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> Also, if you have an SSD for cache device, you accelerate reads, and there
> is absolutely no data risk. In the event of cache device failure,
> performance degrades back to the "normal" level and everything continues
> just fine.
Dropping bac
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:59:39PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:03 PM
> >
> > Separately, with only 4G of RAM, i think an L2ARC is likely about a
> > wash, since L2ARC entries also consume RAM.
>
> True the
> From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:03 PM
>
> Separately, with only 4G of RAM, i think an L2ARC is likely about a
> wash, since L2ARC entries also consume RAM.
True the L2ARC requires some ARC consumption to support it, but for typical
user data, it
Thanks, I like this summary format and the effort it took
to produce seems well-spent.
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 08:50:58PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > but I figured spending 500G on ZIL
> > would be unwise.
>
> You couldn't possibly ever use 500G of ZIL, because the ZIL is required to
>
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Dave U.Random
>
> I am planning to revisit SSD again
> when the consumer drives are reliable enough and don't have wear issues.
> Right now overall integrity and long service life are more impo
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 06:17:08PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:54 -0400, Paul Kraus wrote:
> Here's how you calculate (average) how long a random IOPs takes:
> seek time + ((60 / RPMs) / 2))]
>
> A truly sequential IOPs is:
> (60 / RPMs) / 2)
>
> For that series of dr
Josh, I don't know the internals of the device but I have heard reports of SSDs
that would ignore flush write cache commands _and_ wouldn't have a supercap
protection (nor battery).
Such devices are subject to dataloss.
Did you also catch this thread
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 11:39:13AM -0700, Donald Stahl wrote:
> > Yup; reset storms affected us as well (we were using the X-25 series
> > for ZIL/L2ARC). Only the ZIL drives were impacted, but it was a large
> > impact :)
> What did you see with your reset storm? Were there log errors in
> /var/a
On Jun 2, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Josh Simon wrote:
> I was just doing some storage research and came across this
> http://www.nexenta.com/corp/images/stories/pdfs/hardware-supported.pdf. In
> that document for Nexenta (an opensolaris variant) it states that you should
> not use Intel X25-E SSDSA2SH0
> Yup; reset storms affected us as well (we were using the X-25 series
> for ZIL/L2ARC). Only the ZIL drives were impacted, but it was a large
> impact :)
What did you see with your reset storm? Were there log errors in
/var/adm/messages or did you need to check the controller loogs with
something
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 11:19:25AM -0700, Josh Simon wrote:
> I don't believe this to be the reason since there are other SATA
> (single-port) SSD drives listed as approved in that same document.
>
> Upon further research I found some interesting links that may point to a
> potentially different
I don't believe this to be the reason since there are other SATA
(single-port) SSD drives listed as approved in that same document.
Upon further research I found some interesting links that may point to a
potentially different reason for not using the Intel X25-E with a SAS
Expander:
http://
2011-06-02 18:40, Josh Simon ?:
I was just doing some storage research and came across this
http://www.nexenta.com/corp/images/stories/pdfs/hardware-supported.pdf. In
that document for Nexenta (an opensolaris variant) it states that you
should not use Intel X25-E SSDSA2SH032G1 SSD with a SA
While I am by no means on expert on this, I went through a similar mental
exercise previously and came to the conclusion that in order to service a
particular read request, zfs may need to read more from the disk. For example,
a 16KB request in a stripe might need to retrieve the full 128KB str
I was just doing some storage research and came across this
http://www.nexenta.com/corp/images/stories/pdfs/hardware-supported.pdf.
In that document for Nexenta (an opensolaris variant) it states that you
should not use Intel X25-E SSDSA2SH032G1 SSD with a SAS Expander. Can
anyone tell me why?
Many thanks to all who responded. I learned a lot from this thread! For now
I have decided to make a 3 way mirror because of the read performance. I
don't want to take a risk on an unmirrored drive.
Instead of replying to everyone separately I am following the Sun Managers
system since I read that
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Erik Trimble
>
> Here's how you calculate (average) how long a random IOPs takes:
>
> seek time + ((60 / RPMs) / 2))]
>
> 1 Random IOPs takes [8.5ms + 4.13ms] = 12.6ms, which translates to 78
Based on observed behavior measuring performance of dedup, I would say, some
chunk of data and its associated metadata seem have approximately the same
"warmness" in the cache. So when the data gets evicted, the associated
metadata tends to be evicted too. So whenever you have a cache miss,
inste
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> Here's how you calculate (average) how long a random IOPs takes:
>
> seek time + ((60 / RPMs) / 2))]
>
> A truly sequential IOPs is:
>
> (60 / RPMs) / 2)
>
> For that series of drives, seek time averages 8.5ms (per Seagate).
>
> So, you get
>
2011/6/1 lance wilson :
> The problem is that nfs clients that connect to my solaris 11 express server
> are not inheriting the acl's that are set for the share. They create files
> that don't have any acl assigned to them, just the normal unix file
> permissions. Can someone please provide some
21 matches
Mail list logo
