Hi Robert,
Thank you! Holy mackerel! That's a lot of memory. With that type of a
calculation my 4GB arc_max setting is still in the danger zone on a
Thumper. I wonder if any of the ZFS developers could shed some light
on the calculation?
That kind of memory loss makes ZFS almost unusable for a d
Hi Robert,
I read the following section from
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/when_to_and_not_to as indicating
random writes to a RAID-Z had the performance of a single disk
regardless of the group size:
Effectively, as a first approximation, an N-disk RAID-Z group will
behave as a single
Hi Robert,
We've got the default ncsize. I didn't see any advantage to increasing
it outside of NFS serving...which this server is not. For speed the
X4500 is showing to be a killer MySQL platform. Between the blazing
fast procs and the sheer number of spindles, its perfromance is
tremendous. If
o the Solaris VM system a Solaris Nevada
goal? Or would that be the next major release after Nevada?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/10/07, Mark Maybee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Thank you! Holy mackerel! That's a lot of memory. With that t
Hello all,
I second Al's motion. Even a little script a-la the CoolTools for
tuning Solaris for the T2000 would be great.
-J
On 1/10/07, Al Hopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Mark Maybee wrote:
> Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> > Hi Robert,
> >
&g
Hi Mark,
That does help tremendously. How does ZFS decide which zio cache to
use? I apologize if this has already been addressed somewhere.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/11/07, Mark Maybee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Al Hopper wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Mark Maybee wrote:
>
&
Hello all,
Just my two cents on the issue. The Thumper is proving to be a
terrific database server in all aspects except latency. While the
latency is acceptable, being able to add some degree of battery-backed
write cache that ZFS could use would be phenomenal.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/11/07,
Hi Robert,
We've experienced luck with flaky SATA drives in our STK array by
unseating and reseating the drive to cause a reset of the firmware. It
may be a bad drive, or the firmware may just have hit a bug. Hope its
the latter! :-D
I'd be interested why the hot-spare didn't kick in. I thought
Hi Robert,
Will build 54 offline the drive?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/13/07, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Jason,
Saturday, January 13, 2007, 12:06:57 AM, you wrote:
JJWW> Hi Robert,
JJWW> We've experienced luck with flaky SATA drives in our STK array by
JJWW> unseating a
Hi Torrey,
I think it does if you buy Xsan. Its still a separate product isn't
it? Thought its more like QFS + MPXIO.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/15/07, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
>
> 2. I belive it's definitely possible to just correct your config under
> M
Hi Roch,
You mentioned improved ZFS performance in the latest Nevada build (60
right now?)...I was curious if one would notice much of a performance
improvement between 54 and 60? Also, does anyone think the zfs_arc_max
tunable-support will be made available as a patch to S10U3, or would
that wai
nsport multipathing - Like Mpxio, DLM, VxDMP, etc. -
is usually separated from the filesystem layers.
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> Hi Torrey,
>
> I think it does if you buy Xsan. Its still a separate product isn't
> it? Thought its more like QFS + MPXIO.
>
> Best Regards,
&
Hi Philip,
I'm not an expert, so I'm afraid I don't know what to tell you. I'd
call Apple Support and see what they say. As horrid as they are at
Enterprise support they may be the best ones to clarify if
multipathing is available without Xsan.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/16/07, Philip Mötteli <[
Hi Anantha,
I was curious why segregating at the FS level would provide adequate
I/O isolation? Since all FS are on the same pool, I assumed flogging a
FS would flog the pool and negatively affect all the other FS on that
pool?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/17/07, Anantha N. Srirama <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Hi Robert,
I see. So it really doesn't get around the idea of putting DB files
and logs on separate spindles?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/17/07, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Jason,
Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 11:24:50 PM, you wrote:
JJWW> Hi Anantha,
JJWW> I was curious w
Hi Frank,
Sun doesn't support the X2100 SATA controller on Solaris 10? That's
just bizarre.
-J
On 1/18/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
THANK YOU Naveen, Al Hopper, others, for sinking yourselves into the
shit world of PC hardware and [in]compatibility and coming up with
well qualif
18/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On January 18, 2007 4:45:49 PM -0700 "Jason J. W. Williams"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sun doesn't support the X2100 SATA controller on Solaris 10? That's
> just bizarre.
Not only that, their marketing is
Hi Toby,
Thanks for the links. That's interesting. I assume this goes forward
to the M2s. Glad hot-swap isn't a requirement where we use them.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/18/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 18-Jan-07, at 9:55 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> Hi
Hi David,
I don't know if your company qualifies as a startup under Sun's regs
but you can get an X4500/Thumper for $24,000 under this program:
http://www.sun.com/emrkt/startupessentials/
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/19/07, David J. Orman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking at Sun's 1U x64
Hi Shannon,
The markup is still pretty high on a per-drive basis. That being said,
$1-2/GB is darn low for the capacity in a server. Plus, you're also
paying for having enough HyperTransport I/O to feed the PCI-E I/O.
Does anyone know what problems they had with the 250GB version of the
Thumper
Hi Frank,
I'm sure Richard will check it out. He's a very good guy and not
trying to jerk you around. I'm sure the hostility isn't warranted. :-)
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/22/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On January 22, 2007 10:03:14 AM -0800 Richard Elling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
Hi David,
Depending on the I/O you're doing the X4100/X4200 are much better
suited because of the dual HyperTransport buses. As a storage box with
GigE outputs you've got a lot more I/O capacity with two HT buses than
one. That plus the X4100 is just a more solid box. The X2100 M2 while
a vast im
Hi Guys,
The original X2100 was a pile of doggie doo-doo. All of our problems
with it go back to the atrocious quality of the nForce 4 Pro chipset.
The NICs in particular are just crap. The M2s are better, but the
MCP55 chipset has not resolved all of its flakiness issues. That being
said Sun des
Hi David,
Glad to help! I don't want to bad-mouth the X2100 M2s that much,
because they have been solid. I believe the M2s are made/designed just
for Sun by Quanta Computer (http://www.quanta.com.tw/e_default.htm)
whereas the mobos in the original X2100 was Tyan Tiger with some
slight modificatio
Hello all,
I have a question. Below are two ::memstat outputs about 5 days apart.
The interesting thing is the "anonymous" memory shows 2GB, though the
two major hogs of that memory (two MySQL instances) claim to be
consuming about 6.2GB (checked via pmap).
Also, it seems like the ARC keeps cree
Hi Neal,
We've been getting pretty good performance out of RAID-Z2 with 3x
6-disk RAID-Z2 stripes. More stripes mean better performance all
around...particularly on random reads. But as a file-server that's
probably not a concern. With RAID-Z2 it seems to me 2 hot-spares is
very sufficient, but I
I believe the SmartArray is an LSI like the Dell PERC isn't it?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/23/07, Robert Suh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
People trying to hack together systems might want to look
at the HP DL320s
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/ss/WF05a/15351-241434-241475-241475
-f79-3232017
Hi Peter,
Perhaps I'm a bit dense, but I've been befuddled by the x+y notation
myself. Is it X stripes consisting of Y disks?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/23/07, Peter Tribble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/23/07, Neal Pollack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi: (Warning, new zfs user question
Hi Peter,
Ah! That clears it up for me. Thank you.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/23/07, Peter Tribble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/23/07, Jason J. W. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Perhaps I'm a bit dense, but I've been befuddled by the
Hi All,
This is a bit off-topic...but since the Thumper is the poster child
for ZFS I hope its not too off-topic.
What are the actual origins of the Thumper? I've heard varying stories
in word and print. It appears that the Thumper was the original server
Bechtolsheim designed at Kealia as a mas
Hi Prashanth,
My company did a lot of LVM+XFS vs. SVM+UFS testing in addition to
ZFS. Overall, LVM's overhead is abysmal. We witnessed performance hits
of 50%+. SVM only reduced performance by about 15%. ZFS was similar,
though a tad higher.
Also, my understanding is you can't write to a ZFS sna
Wow. That's an incredibly cool story. Thank you for sharing it! Does
the Thumper today pretty much resemble what you saw then?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/23/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a bit off-topic...but since the Thumper is the poster child
> for ZFS I hope its no
Hi Prashanth,
This was about a year ago. I believe I ran bonnie++ and IOzone tests.
Tried also to simulate an OLTP load. The 15-20% overhead for ZFS was
vs. UFS on a raw disk...UFS on SVM was almost exactly 15% lower
performance than raw UFS. UFS and XFS on raw disk were pretty similar
in terms o
'Cept the 3511 is highway robbery for what you get. ;-)
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/24/07, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Peter Eriksson wrote:
>> too much of our future roadmap, suffice it to say that one should expect
>> much, much more from Sun in this vein: innovative software and i
Hi Wee,
Having snapshots in the filesystem that work so well is really nice.
How are y'all quiescing the DB?
Best Regards,
J
On 1/24/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/25/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> after all, what was ZFS going to do with that expensive
Hi Jeff,
We're running a FLX210 which I believe is an Engenio 2884. In our case
it also is attached to a T2000. ZFS has run VERY stably for us with
data integrity issues at all.
We did have a significant latency problem caused by ZFS flushing the
write cache on the array after every write, but t
Correction: "ZFS has run VERY stably for us with data integrity
issues at all." should read "ZFS has run VERY stably for us with NO
data integrity issues at all."
On 1/26/07, Jason J. W. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jeff,
We're running a FLX210 whi
To be fair, you can replace vdevs with same-sized or larger vdevs online.
The issue is that you cannot replace with smaller vdevs nor can you
eliminate vdevs. In other words, I can migrate data around without
downtime, I just can't shrink or eliminate vdevs without send/recv.
This is where the ph
You could use SAN zoning of the affected LUN's to keep multiple hosts
from seeing the zpool. When failover time comes, you change the zoning
to make the LUN's visible to the new host, then import. When the old
host reboots, it won't find any zpool. Better safe than sorry
Or change the LUN
Could the replication engine eventually be integrated more tightly
with ZFS? That would be slick alternative to send/recv.
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/26/07, Jim Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Project Overview:
I propose the creation of a project on opensolaris.org, to bring to the community
Hi Jeff,
Maybe I mis-read this thread, but I don't think anyone was saying that
using ZFS on-top of an intelligent array risks more corruption. Given
my experience, I wouldn't run ZFS without some level of redundancy,
since it will panic your kernel in a RAID-0 scenario where it detects
a LUN is
Thank you for the detailed explanation. It is very helpful to
understand the issue. Is anyone successfully using SNDR with ZFS yet?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/26/07, Jim Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> Could the replication engine eventually be integr
Hi Guys,
I seem to remember the Massive Array of Independent Disk guys ran into
a problem I think they called static friction, where idle drives would
fail on spin up after being idle for a long time:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1941205,00.asp
Would that apply here?
Best Regards,
Jason
Hi Jim,
Thank you very much for the heads up. Unfortunately, we need the
write-cache enabled for the application I was thinking of combining
this with. Sounds like SNDR and ZFS need some more soak time together
before you can use both to their full potential together?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/2
ork. Would dramatically cut down on the power. What do y'all think?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/29/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 29-Jan-07, at 11:02 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I seem to remember the Massive Array of Independent Disk guys ran
Hi Nicholas,
ZFS itself is very stable and very effective as fast FS in our
experience. If you browse the archives of the list you'll see that NFS
performance is pretty acceptable, with some performance/RAM quirks
around small files:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?threadID=19858
ht
Hi Nicholas,
Actually Virtual Iron, they have a nice system at the moment with live
migration of windows guest.
Ah. We looked at them for some Windows DR. They do have a nice product.
3. Which leads to: coming from Debian, how easy is system updates? I
remember with OpenBSD system updates u
101 - 147 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
