Torrey McMahon wrote:
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Torrey,
Friday, November 10, 2006, 11:31:31 PM, you wrote:
[SNIP]
Tunable in a form of pool property, with default 100%.
On the other hand maybe simple algorithm Veritas has used is good
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Torrey,
Friday, November 10, 2006, 11:31:31 PM, you wrote:
TM> Robert Milkowski wrote:
Also scrub can consume all CPU power on smaller and older
machines and
that's not always what I would like.
REP> The big question, though, is "10% of
ZFS fans,
Recalling our conversation about hot-plug and hot-swap terminology and use,
I afraid to say that CR 6483250 has been closed as will-not-fix. No
explaination
was given. If you feel strongly about this, please open another CR and pile on.
*Change Request ID*: 6483250
*Synopsis*: X2100 r
Mike Gerdts wrote:
On 11/7/06, Richard Elling - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> d10 mirror of c0t2d0s0 and c0t3d0s0swap (2+2GB, to match above)
Also a waste, use a swap file. Add a dumpdev if you care about
kernel dumps, no need to mirror a dumpdev.
How do you fi
The best thing about best practices is that there are so many of them :-)
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello John,
Tuesday, November 7, 2006, 7:45:46 PM, you wrote:
JT> Greetings all-
JT> I have a new X4200 that I'm getting ready to deploy. It has
JT> four 146 GB SAS drives. I'd like to setup
Daniel Rock wrote:
Richard Elling - PAE schrieb:
The big question, though, is "10% of what?" User CPU? iops?
Maybe something like the "slow" parameter of VxVM?
slow[=iodelay]
Reduces toe system performance impact of copy
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Saturday, November 4, 2006, 12:46:05 AM, you wrote:
REP> Incidentally, since ZFS schedules the resync iops itself, then it can
REP> really move along on a mostly idle system. You should be able to resync
REP> at near the media speed for an idle system. By contrast, a har
Al Hopper wrote:
[1] Using MTTDL = MTBF^2 / (N * (N-1) * MTTR)
But ... I'm not sure I buy into your numbers given the probability that
more than one disk will fail inside the service window - given that the
disks are identical? Or ... a disk failure occurs at 5:01 PM (quitting
time) on a Frida
ozan s. yigit wrote:
for s10u2, documentation recommends 3 to 9 devices in raidz. what is the
basis for this recommendation? i assume it is performance and not failure
resilience, but i am just guessing... [i know, recommendation was intended
for people who know their raid cold, so it needed no f
Robert Milkowski wrote:
REP> P.S. did you upgrade the OS? I'd consider the need for 'zpool upgrade' to
be
REP> a bug.
on one thumper I reinstalled OS to S10U3 beta and imported default
pool. On another I put snv_49 and imported pool. Then I destroyed
pools and I'm experimenting with different
Wow. Thanks for the data. This is somewhat consistent with what I
predict in RAIDoptimizer.
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello zfs-discuss,
Server: x4500, 2x Opetron 285 (dual-core), 16GB RAM, 48x500GB
filebench/randomread script, filesize=256GB
Your performance numbers are better than I predi
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Thumpers come with Solaris pre-installed and already configured one pool.
It's a collection of raid-z1 groups but some groups are smaller than the others.
I'll reconfigure it anyway but I'm just curious what side-effects can there be
with such a config?
Any performanc
comment below...
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Richard,
Wednesday, November 1, 2006, 11:36:14 PM, you wrote:
REP> Adam Leventhal wrote:
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 04:00:43PM -0500, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Lets say server A has the pool with NFS shared, or iSCSI shared,
volumes. Server A exports t
Rick McNeal wrote:
Looking at the code it doesn't seem like the backing store being zeroed.
In case of regular file a single sector (512 byte) of uninitialized
data from
stack (bad practice ?) is written to the very end of the file. And in
case
I hang my head in shame. I've fixed the code.
Adam Leventhal wrote:
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 04:00:43PM -0500, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Lets say server A has the pool with NFS shared, or iSCSI shared,
volumes. Server A exports the pool or goes down. Server B imports the pool.
Which clients would still be active on the filesystem(s)? The ones
There are several ways to do this. Two of the most popular are syslog
and SNMP. syslog works, just like it always did (or didn't). For more
details on FMA and how it works with SNMP traps, see the conversations on
the OpenSolaris fault management community,
http://www.opensolaris.org/os
Jay Grogan wrote:
To answer your question "Yes I did expect the same or better performance than standard
UFS" based on all the hype and to quote Sun "Blazing performance
ZFS is based on a transactional object model that removes most of the
traditional constraints on the order of issuing I/Os, w
Wes Williams wrote:
Thanks gents for your replies. I've used to a very large config W2100z and ZFS
for awhile but didn't know "how low can you go" for ZFS to shine, though a 64-bit
CPU seems to be the minimum performance threshold.
Now that Sun's store is [sort of] working again, I can see s
Wes Williams wrote:
I could use the list's help.
My goal: Build a cheap ZFS file server with OpenSolairs on UFS boot (for now)
10,000 rpm U320 SCSI drive while having a ZFS pool in the same machine. The ZFS
pool will either be a mirror or raidz setup consisting of either two or three
500Gb
[Richard removes his Sun hat...]
Ceri Davies wrote:
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:01:45PM -0800, Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
We're looking at replacing a current Linux server with a T1000 + a fiber
channel enclosure to take advantage of ZFS. Unfortunately, the T1000 only
CLARIFICATION below.
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
We're looking at replacing a current Linux server with a T1000 + a
fiber channel enclosure to take advantage of ZFS. Unfortunately, the
T1000 only has a single drive bay (!) which makes it impossible to
follow our n
Chris Adams wrote:
We're looking at replacing a current Linux server with a T1000 + a fiber channel enclosure
to take advantage of ZFS. Unfortunately, the T1000 only has a single drive bay (!) which
makes it impossible to follow our normal practice of mirroring the root file system;
naturally t
It is supposed to work, though I haven't tried it.
Gary Gendel wrote:
Here is the problem I'm trying to solve...
Ive been using a sparc machine as my primary home server for years. A few years
back the motherboard died. I did a nightly backup on an external USB drive
formatted in ufs format.
Pedantic question, what would this gain us other than better data
retention?
Space and (especially?) performance would be worse with RAID-Z+1
than 2-way mirrors.
-- richard
Frank Cusack wrote:
On October 24, 2006 9:19:07 AM -0700 "Anton B. Rang"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Our thinking is that
Matty wrote:
We use VxVM quite a bit at my place of employment, and are extremely
interested in moving to ZFS to reduce complexity and costs. One useful
feature that is in VxVM that doesn't seem to be in ZFS is the ability to
migrate vdevs between pools.
Could you be more specific? Are you
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Dennis Clarke wrote:
While ZFS may do a similar thing *I don't know* if there is a published
document yet that shows conclusively that ZFS will survive multiple disk
failures.
?? why not? Perhaps this is just too simple and therefore doesn't get
explained well.
That is
Dennis Clarke wrote:
While ZFS may do a similar thing *I don't know* if there is a published
document yet that shows conclusively that ZFS will survive multiple disk
failures.
?? why not? Perhaps this is just too simple and therefore doesn't get
explained well.
Note that SVM (nee Solstice Di
Victor Latushkin wrote:
It seems that if you clone disks bit for bit you'll end up with the
same hostid for all boxes and this may be confusing.
Geez, just spoof them to something different, if you must.
-- richard
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-di
minor adjustments below...
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Asif Iqbal wrote:
Hi
I have a X2100 with two 74G disks. I build the OS on the first disk
with slice0 root 10G ufs, slice1 2.5G swap, slice6 25MB ufs and slice7
62G zfs. What is the fastest way to clone it to the second disk. I
have to build 10
Frank Cusack wrote:
On October 20, 2006 8:43:03 AM -0700 Ed Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 20, 2006, at 0:48, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Anthony Miller wrote:
I want to create create a raidz on one array and have it mirrored to
the other array.
Do you think this will get you more availab
Victor Latushkin wrote:
The next natural question is
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Isn't this in a FAQ somewhere? IIRC, if ZFS finds a disk via two paths,
then it will pick one.
Will it (try to) failover to another one if picked one fails?
No, not automatically. MPXIO provides auto
Anthony Miller wrote:
Hi,
I've search the forums and not found any answer to the following.
I have 2 JBOD arrays each with 4 disks.
I want to create create a raidz on one array and have it mirrored to the other
array.
Today, the top level raid sets are assembled using dynamic striping. The
Isn't this in a FAQ somewhere? IIRC, if ZFS finds a disk via two paths,
then it will pick one.
-- richard
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
This of course does work. I guess the real question was what will
happen if you now export your pool, then disable mpxio so you will see
the
still more below...
Frank Cusack wrote:
On October 17, 2006 1:45:45 PM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah, more terminology below...
Daniel Rock wrote:
I still haven't found the document which states that hot-plugging of
disks is not supported by Sol
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
All SATA drives are hot-pluggable.
The caveat here is that some enclosures will cause a shutdown when
opened to access the drives. The drives themselves are hot-pluggable,
but access may not possible without a shutdown.
-- richard
Ah, more terminology below...
Daniel Rock wrote:
Richard Elling - PAE schrieb:
Frank Cusack wrote:
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Sun sells a hardware product which
their software does not support. The worst part is it is advertised as
working. <http://www.sun.com/server
Frank Cusack wrote:
On October 17, 2006 10:59:51 AM -0700 Richard Elling - PAE
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The realities of the hardware world strike again.
Sun does use the Siig SATA chips in some products, Marvell in others,
and NVidia MCPs in others. The difference is in who writ
Dale Ghent wrote:
On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On October 11, 2006 11:14:59 PM -0400 Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris
problems with my machine's MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both
forcedeth and
[editorial comment below :-)]
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
I'm glad you asked this question. We are currently expecting 3511
storage sub-systems for our servers. We were wondering about their
configuration as well.
Roch wrote:
Oracle will typically create it's files with 128K writes
not recordsize ones.
Blast from the past...
http://www.sun.com/blueprints/0400/ram-vxfs.pdf
-- richard
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.
Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
I'm glad you asked this question. We are currently expecting 3511 storage sub-systems for
our servers. We were wondering about their configuration as well. This ZFS thing throws a
wrench in the old line think ;-) Seriously, we now have to put on a new hat to figure out
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Richard,
Friday, October 13, 2006, 8:05:18 AM, you wrote:
REP> Do you want data availability, data retention, space, or performance?
data availability, space, performance
Thumper is not designed for high data availability, more traditional RAID
arrays are fully
Do you want data availability, data retention, space, or performance?
-- richard
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello zfs-discuss,
While waiting for Thumpers to come I'm thinking how to configure
them. I would like to use raid-z. As thumper has 6 SATA controllers
each 8-port then maybe it would
Erik Trimble wrote:
The problem is we are comparing apples to oranges in user bases here.
TOPS-20 systems had a couple of dozen users (or, at most, a few
hundred). VMS only slightly more. UNIX/POSIX systems have 10s of
thousands.
IIRC, I had about a dozen files under VMS, not counting ver
Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 11:19:19AM -0700, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 10/5/06, Jeremy Teo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What would a version FS buy us that cron+ zfs snapshots doesn't?
Finer granularity; no chance of missing a change.
TOPS-20 did this, and it was *tremendo
Dick Davies wrote:
Need a bit of help salvaging a perfectly working ZFS
mirror that I've managed to render unbootable.
I've had a ZFS root (x86, mirored zpool, SXCR b46 ) working fine for
months.
I very foolishly decided to mirror /grub using SVM
(so I could boot easily if a disk died). Shran
Anton B. Rang wrote:
This is a difference from RAID-5. In RAID-5, small reads are more efficient than
mirroring because there are more disk spindles available, and a small read
usually uses only one. Small writes are less efficient than mirroring in RAID-5
because they require a pre-read phase
Keith Clay wrote:
We are in the process of purchasing new san/s that our mail server runs
on (JES3). We have moved our mailstores to zfs and continue to have
checksum errors -- they are corrected but this improves on the ufs inode
errors that require system shutdown and fsck.
So, I am recomm
observations below...
Bill Moore wrote:
Thanks, Chris, for digging into this and sharing your results. These
seemingly stranded sectors are actually properly accounted for in terms
of space utilization, since they are actually unusable while maintaining
integrity in the face of a single drive f
Chris Csanady wrote:
I believe I have tracked down the problem discussed in the "low
disk performance thread." It seems that an alignment issue will
cause small file/block performance to be abysmal on a RAID-Z.
metaslab_ff_alloc() seems to naturally align all allocations, and
so all blocks will
Harley Gorrell wrote:
I do wonder what accounts for the improvement -- seek
time, transfer rate, disk cache, or something else? Does
anywone have a dtrace script to measure this which they
would share?
You might also be seeing the effects of defect management. As
drives get older, they ten
Alexei Rodriguez wrote:
I currently have a linux system at home with a pair of 3ware RAID (pci)
controllers (4 port each) with a total of 8x250GB drives attached. I would
like to move this existing setup to zfs but the problem I keep running into
is finding suitable SATA controllers to replace
mount -v
-- richard
Jan Hendrik Mangold wrote:
This may be a dumb question, but is there a way to find out if an
arbitrary filesystem is actually a zfs filesystem? Like if I were to
write a script that needs to do different steps based on the underlying
filesystem.
Any pointers welcome.
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Non-recoverable reads may not represent permanent failures. In the case
of a RAID array, the data should be reconstructed and a rewrite + verify
attempted with the possibility of sparing the sector. ZFS can
reconstruct the data and relocate
still more below...
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Darren Dunham wrote:
In my experience, we would not normally try to mount two different
copies of the same data at the same time on a single host. To avoid
confusion, we would especially not want to do this if the data
represents
two different points
reply below...
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
This question was asked many times in this thread. IMHO, it is the
single biggest reason we should implement ditto blocks for data.
We did a study of disk failures in an enterprise RAID array a few
years ago. One failure mode
more below...
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:40:14PM -0700, Eric Hill wrote:
We are implementing a ZFS storage server (NAS) to replace a NetApp
box. I have a Sun server with two dual Ultra320 PCIX cards connected
to 4 shelves of 12 500GB disks each, yielding a total of 24TB of
In general, you will have to trade-off data availability, reliability,
performance, and space. You haven't really given us requirements which
would point us in one direction or another.
I'm developing a tool to help you make these trade-offs. But it isn't
yet ready for public consumption. RSN
[pardon the digression]
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 9/18/06, Richard Elling - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interestingly, the operation may succeed and yet we will get an error
which recommends replacing the drive. For example, if the failure
prediction threshold is exceeded. You
ditto data blocks anyone? :-)
-- richard
Ian Collins wrote:
Dick Davies wrote:
What does zpool status say?
Knew I'd forgotten to check something:
# zpool status -v
pool: tank
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data
corruption. Applic
more below...
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 9/18/06, Richard Elling - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[appologies for being away from my data last week]
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> The more I look at it the more I think that a second copy on the same
> disk doesn't protect again
[appologies for being away from my data last week]
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
The more I look at it the more I think that a second copy on the same
disk doesn't protect against very much real-world risk. Am I wrong
here? Are partial(small) disk corruptions more common than I think?
I don't have
Joerg Haederli wrote:
I'm really not an expert on ZFS, but at least from my point to
handle such cases ZFS has to handle at least the following points
- GUID a new/different GUID has to be assigned
- LUNs ZFS has to be aware that device trees are different, if
these are part of some k
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello James,
I belive that storing hostid, etc. in a label and checking if it
matches on auto-import is the right solution.
Before it's implemented you can use -R right now with home-clusters
and don't worry about auto-import.
hostid isn't sufficient (got a scar), so pe
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Any idea how I could approach finding drivers to let me run in a more
real SATA mode? Is it worth trying Express or CE just to see?
Today, use the Marvell controllers. See marvell88sx(7d)
SuperMicro has several products which use these controllers.
-- richard
___
Anton B. Rang wrote:
JBOD probably isn't dead, simply because motherboard manufacturers are unlikely to pay
the extra $10 it might cost to use a RAID-enabled chip rather than a plain chip (and
the cost is more if you add cache RAM); but basic RAID is at least cheap.
NVidia MCPs (later NForce
Ed Gould wrote:
On Sep 8, 2006, at 11:35, Torrey McMahon wrote:
If I read between the lines here I think you're saying that the raid
functionality is in the chipset but the management can only be done by
software running on the outside. (Right?)
No. All that's in the chipset is enough to rea
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't quite see this in my crystal ball. Rather, I see all of the SAS/SATA
chipset vendors putting RAID in the chipset. Basically, you can't get a
"dumb" interface anymore, except for fibre channel :-). In other words, if
we were to design a system in a chassis with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the case where I don't understand Sun's politics at all: Sun
doesn't offer really cheap JBOD which can be bought just for ZFS. And
don't even tell me about 3310/3320 JBODs - they are horrible expansive :-(
Yep, multipacks are EOL for some time now -- killed by b
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Raid calculations take CPU time but I haven't seen numbers on ZFS usage.
SVM is known for using a fair bit of CPU when performing R5 calculations
and I'm sure other OS have the same issue. EMC used to go around saying
that offloading raid calculations to their storage arra
Darren Dunham wrote:
Let's say the devices are named thus (and I'm making this up):
/devices/../../SUNW,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/WWN:sliceno
[EMAIL PROTECTED] denotes the FLX380 frame, [0-6]
[EMAIL PROTECTED],n denotes the virtual disk,LUN, [0-19],[0-3]
How do I know that my strip
There is another option. I'll call it "grow into your storage."
Pre-ZFS, for most systems you would need to allocate the storage well
in advance of its use. For the 7xFLX380 case using SVM and UFS, you
would typically setup the FLX380 LUNs, merge them together using SVM,
and newfs. Growing is s
Oatway, Ted wrote:
Thanks for the response Richard. Forgive my ignorance but the following
questions come to mind as I read your response.
I would then have to create 80 RAIDz(6+1) Volumes and the process of
creating these Volumes can be scripted. But -
1) I would then have to create 80 mount p
Oatway, Ted wrote:
IHAC that has 560+ LUNs that will be assigned to ZFS Pools and some
level of protection. The LUNs are provided by seven Sun StorageTek
FLX380s. Each FLX380 is configured with 20 Virtual Disks. Each Virtual
Disk presents four Volumes/LUNs. (4 Volumes x 20 Virtual Disks x 7 Di
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
Here's 10 options I can think of to summarize combinations of zfs with
hw redundancy:
# ZFS ARRAY HWCAPACITYCOMMENTS
-- ---
1 R0 R1 N/2 hw mirror - no zfs healing (XXX)
2 R0 R5
Hawk Tsai wrote:
Webmin is faster and light weight compared to SMC.
... and most people don't know it ships with Solaris. See webmin(1m) and
webminsetup(1m).
-- richard
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris
Mike Gerdts wrote:
not an expert, but most if not all compression is integer based, and
I don't think floating point is supported inside the kernel anyway so
it has to be integer based.
Not too long ago Roch said "compression runs in the context of a
single thread per
pool", which makes me wor
Srivastava, Sanjaya wrote:
I have been seeing data corruption on the ZFS filesystem. Here are
some details. The machine is running s10 on X86 platform with a single
160Gb SATA disk. (root on s0 and zfs on s7)
I'd wager that it is a hardware problem. Personally, I've had less than
satisfa
Ben Short wrote:
Hi,
I'm plan to build home server that will host my svn repository, fileserver, mailserver and webserver.
This is my plan..
I have an old dell precision 420 dual 933Mhz pIII cpus. Inside this i have one
scsi 9.1G hdd and 2 80G ide hdds. I am going to install solaris 10 on th
Bob Evans wrote:
Hi, this is a follow up to "Significant pauses to zfs writes".
I'm getting about 15% slower performance using ZFS raidz than if I just mount
the same type of drive using ufs.
What is your expectation?
-- richard
___
zfs-discuss mai
Peter Bortas wrote:
On 8/15/06, David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/15/06, Richard Elling - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This can be configured with the local mail delivery agent. You
could even
> put incoming mail in someone's $HOME, however that is
Anton B. Rang wrote:
One problem with this approach is that software expects /var/mail to be full of files,
not directories, for each user. I don't think you can get the right semantics out of
ZFS for this yet (loopback mounting a file comes to mind, but breaks down if something
tries to delet
This is a great question for the Solaris forum at NVidia.
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=45
My experience has been that NVidia does a pretty good job keeping the
NForce software compatible with the hardware going forward. For Solaris,
pre-NForce4 is a little spotty, but that
n parentheses. But it makes more sense
to take dynamic striping as a fact of life, and not differentiate a
single mirror from two mirrors, etc.
- Eric
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 02:16:40PM -0700, Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
I'd like to get a concensus of how to describe ZFS RAID configs in a
I'd like to get a concensus of how to describe ZFS RAID configs in a
short-hand method. For example,
single-level
no RAID (1 disk)
RAID-0 (dynamic stripe, > 1 disk)
RAID-1
RAID-Z
RAID-Z2
mutliple l
85 matches
Mail list logo
