Re: [zfs-discuss] Validating alignment of NTFS/VMDK/ZFS blocks

Not having specific knowledge of the VMDK format, I think what you are seeing is that there is extra data associated with maintaining the VMDK. If you are seeing lower dedup ratios than you would expect, it sounds like some of this extra data could be added to each block. The VMDK spec appears

[zfs-discuss] how l2arc works?

Hello, I was wondering if someone could point me to any information describing how the l2arc works? I attached an SSD as a cache device to the root pool of a 2009.11 system. Although the cache has started filling up (zpool iostat -v) it just seems that when I do a reboot, I hear quite a bit

[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] zfs reliability under xen

Blake wrote: On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Ahmed Kamal > wrote: However, if you need to decide, whether to use Xen, test your setup before going into production and ask your boss, whether he can live with innovat

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragments 32 bits RAM? Problem?

Does PAE help things at all on 32-bit ? Brian Hechinger wrote: > On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 12:42:44PM -0600, Tim wrote: > >> "Solaris + ZFS and this is a concern" >> >> Sounds to me like they want to try out solaris + zfs, not "zfs on fuse". >> > > Ooops, misread what he said. Sorry about

Re: [zfs-discuss] Pros/Cons of multiple zpools?

? --joe Johan Hartzenberg wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Joseph Mocker > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Hello, > > I haven't seen this discussed before. Any pointers would be > appreciated. > >

[zfs-discuss] Pros/Cons of multiple zpools?

Hello, I haven't seen this discussed before. Any pointers would be appreciated. I'm curious, if I have a set of disks in a system, is there any benefit or disadvantage to breaking the disks into multiple pools instead of a single pool? Does multiple pools cause any additional overhead for ZFS,

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs snaps and removing some files

Krzys wrote: Is there a way to mount file system as read/write and be able to remove those big files that I dont need there? My understanding is that shapshots are read/only by design, so I don't think you are going to be able to remove files from them. One thing to remember is that if t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS hangs systems during copy

I have reported similar issues with ZFS taking most of my 2G in one system and 3G in another. I have been told to add a swap partition which I normally do not do. It mostly has cleared up the problem however I am still bugged by needing to do that in the first place. ZFS memory management seems

Re: [zfs-discuss] A versioning FS

Nicolas Williams wrote: On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:25:17PM -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: No, any sane VC protocol must specifically forbid the checkin of the stuff I want versioning (or file copies or whatever) for. It's partial changes, probably doesn't compile, nearly certainly doesn't w

[zfs-discuss] Re: Snapshots of an active file

Erik Trimble wrote: Joseph Mocker wrote: Erik Trimble wrote: The developers can answer this definitively, but I believe the answer to your questions is NO. That is, if there is anything in the buffer waiting to be written when a snapshot request comes along, the buffer is written out

Re: [zfs-discuss] A versioning FS

Erik Trimble wrote: The developers can answer this definitively, but I believe the answer to your questions is NO. That is, if there is anything in the buffer waiting to be written when a snapshot request comes along, the buffer is written out so that the file is consistent with the last wr

Re: [zfs-discuss] A versioning FS

Nicolas Williams wrote: The big question though is: how to snapshot file versions when they are touched/created by applications that are not aware of FV? Certainly not with every write(2). At fsync(2), close(2), open(2) for write/append? What if an application deals in multiple files? Etc..

Re: [zfs-discuss] A versioning FS

Nicolas Williams wrote: On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 03:30:20PM -0600, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Oct 6, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: OK. So, now we're on to FV. As Nico pointed out, FV is going to need a new API. Using the VMS convention of simply creating file nam

Re: [zfs-discuss] A versioning FS

Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: disclaimer: I have not used zfs snapshots a lot as I am still experimenting with zfs, but they appear to be similar to freebsd snapshots, with which I am familiar. The user experience with snapshots, in terms of file versioning (#1, #2, maybe #3) is m

Re: [zfs-discuss] A versioning FS

Matthew Ahrens wrote: If you disagree, please tell us *why* you think snapshots don't solve the problem. Technically there's a race condition here. If you're taking regular snapshots, you might see 10:25 - snapshot 1 - myfile.xls version 21 10:26 -- myfile.xls version 22 10:27

Re: [zfs-discuss] Apple Time Machine

Well, its hard to tell from the description whether the "Time Machine browser" is the only way you can get at previous versions of files before you restore them. If so, this is somewhat different than snapshots. --joe David J. Orman wrote: Reading that site, it sounds EXACTLY like snapshots.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS performance using slices vs. entire disk?

Eric Schrock wrote: On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:24:12AM -0700, Marion Hakanson wrote: zpool create mirror c0t2d0 c0t3d0 mirror c0t0d0s5 c0t1d0s5 Is this allowed? Is it stupid? Will performance be so bad/bizarre that it should be avoided at all costs? Anybody tried it? Yes, it's a

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS performance using slices vs. entire disk?

Ahh, interesting information. Thanks folks, I'm have a better understanding of this now. --joe Jeff Bonwick wrote: is zfs any less efficient with just using a portion of a disk versus the entire disk? As others mentioned, if we're given a whole disk (i.e. no slice is specified) then we

[zfs-discuss] ZFS performance using slices vs. entire disk?

I know this is going to sound a little vague but... A coworker said he read somewhere that ZFS is more efficient if you configure pools from entire disks instead of just slices of disks. I'm curious if there is any merit to this? The use case that we had been discussing was something to the e

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Poor performance on NFS-exported ZFS volumes

Richard Elling wrote: How hard would it be to write a tool like that? Something along the lines of: zpool bench raidz disk1 disk2 ... diskN Let ZFS figure out the best way to set up your disks for you and tell you how it should be laid out (and even offer a "just do it" flag that will let it

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sucking down my memory!?

Ah ha. Interesting procedure and bug report. This is starting to make sense. Another interesting bug report: 6416757 zfs could still use less memory This one is more or less the same thing I have noticed. I guess I'll add some swap for the short term. :-( --joe Roch wrote: I just ran:

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sucking down my memory!?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've kind of side tracked, but Yes, I do understand the limitations of running without swap. However, in the interest of performance, I, and in fact my whole organization which runs about 300 servers, disable swap. We've never had an out of memory problem in the past

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sucking down my memory!?

Bart Smaalders wrote: Joseph Mocker wrote: Bart Smaalders wrote: How much swap space is configured on this machine? Zero. Is there any reason I would want to configure any swap space? --joe Well, if you want to allocate 500 MB in /tmp, and your machine has no swap, you need 500M of

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sucking down my memory!?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. In this particular case: total: 213728k bytes allocated + 8896k reserved = 222624k used, 11416864k available you have 9MB of "reserved" memory which means it is memory which is not doing anything. Then there is a lot of "dirty" data which is never used again and

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sucking down my memory!?

circumstances where the VM interfaces are currently inadequate. Someone else on the ZFS team may be able to get some more specifics from you to figure out what's really going on. - Eric On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 04:03:50PM -0700, Joseph Mocker wrote: So what's going on! Please hel

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sucking down my memory!?

Bart Smaalders wrote: How much swap space is configured on this machine? Zero. Is there any reason I would want to configure any swap space? --joe ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinf

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sucking down my memory!?

Someone else on the ZFS team may be able to get some more specifics from you to figure out what's really going on. - Eric On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 04:03:50PM -0700, Joseph Mocker wrote: So what's going on! Please help. I want my memory back! This is essentially by design, due to

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sucking down my memory!?

So what's going on! Please help. I want my memory back! This is essentially by design, due to the way that ZFS uses kernel memory for caching and other stuff. You can alleviate this somewhat by running a 64bit processor, which has a significantly larger address space to play with. Uhh. I

[zfs-discuss] zfs sucking down my memory!?

Last week I upgraded to Solaris 10_U2 and migrated my old UFS partitions to a ZFS pool. Since then I've noticed some of my nightly cron jobs failing because of memory allocation errors. So today I decided to look into it. First thing I looked at was user process memory. The only two real user p

Re: [zfs-discuss] Enabling compression/encryption on a populated filesystem

Jeff Victor wrote: And if that file system is multiple terrabytes would you be okay with there being a read and write lock while this runs ? I am only guessing, but when encryption is "important enough" the answer is "yes." But the next question is then "is this situation common enough

Re: [zfs-discuss] system unresponsive after issuing a zpool attach

Dennis Clarke wrote: whoa whoa ... just one bloody second .. whoa .. That looks like a real nasty bug description there. What are the details on that? Is this particular to a given system or controller config or something liek that or are we talking global to Solaris 10 Update 2 everywhere

Re: [zfs-discuss] system unresponsive after issuing a zpool attach

Dennis Clarke wrote: Today I attempted to upgrade to S10_U2 and migrate some mirrored UFS SVM partitions to ZFS. I used Live Upgrade to migrate from U1 to U2 and that went without a hitch on my SunBlade 2000. And the initial conversion of one side of the UFS mirrors to a ZFS pool and subsequent

[zfs-discuss] system unresponsive after issuing a zpool attach

Today I attempted to upgrade to S10_U2 and migrate some mirrored UFS SVM partitions to ZFS. I used Live Upgrade to migrate from U1 to U2 and that went without a hitch on my SunBlade 2000. And the initial conversion of one side of the UFS mirrors to a ZFS pool and subsequent data migration went