Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Richard Elling
> mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Jun 10, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Arne Jansen wrote:
>
> > Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> >> Well, I'm more accustomed to "sequential vs. random", but YMMW.
> >> As to 67000 5
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
But what about the parity? Obviously it has to be checked, but I can't
find
any indications for it in the literature. The man page only states that
the
data is being checksummed and only if that fails the redundancy is being
used.
Please tell me I'm wrong ;)
I believe y
Hi,
I have a small question about the depth of scrub in a raidz/2/3 configuration.
I'm quite sure scrub does not check spares or unused areas of the disks (it
could check if the disks detects any errors there).
But what about the parity? Obviously it has to be checked, but I can't find
any indicat
Is the pool mounted? I ran into this problem frequently, until I set mountpoint
to legacy. It may be that I had to destroy the filesystem afterwards, but since
I stopped mounting the backup target everything runs smoothly. Nevertheless I
agree it would be nice to find the root cause for this.
--
A
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: sensille [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
>>
>> The only thing I'd like to point out
>> is that
>> ZFS doesn't do random writes on a slog, but nearly linear writes. This
>> might
>> even be hurting performance more
(resent because of received bounce)
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: sensille [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
So this brings me back to the question I indirectly asked in the middle of a
much longer previous email -
Is there some way, in software, to detect the current position of the head?
If not
(resent because of mail problems)
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: sensille [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
The only thing I'd like to point out
is that
ZFS doesn't do random writes on a slog, but nearly linear writes. This
might
even be hurting performance more than random writes, because
Neil Perrin wrote:
> Yes, I agree this seems very appealing. I have investigated and
> observed similar results. Just allocating larger intent log blocks but
> only writing to say the first half of them has seen the same effect.
> Despite the impressive results, we have not pursued this further mai
Richard Elling wrote:
> On May 26, 2010, at 8:38 AM, Neil Perrin wrote:
>
>> On 05/26/10 07:10, sensille wrote:
>>> My idea goes as follows: don't write linearly. Track the rotation
>>> and write to the position the head will hit next. This might be done
>
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010, sensille wrote:
>> The basic idea: the main problem when using a HDD as a ZIL device
>> are the cache flushes in combination with the linear write pattern
>> of the ZIL. This leads to a whole rotation of the platter after
>>
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of sensille
>>
>> The basic idea: the main problem when using a HDD as a ZIL device
>> are the cache flushes in combination with the line
Recently, I've been reading through the ZIL/slog discussion and
have the impression that a lot of folks here are (like me)
interested in getting a viable solution for a cheap, fast and
reliable ZIL device.
I think I can provide such a solution for about $200, but it
involves a lot of development wo
Don wrote:
>
> With that in mind- Is anyone using the new OCZ Vertex 2 SSD's as a ZIL?
>
> They're claiming 50k IOPS (4k Write- Aligned), 2 million hour MTBF, TRIM
> support, etc. That's more write IOPS than the ZEUS (40k IOPS, $) but at
> half the price of an Intel X25-E (3.3k IOPS, $400).
charles wrote:
>
> Basically after about ZFS 1000 filesystem creations the creation time slows
> down to around 4 seconds, and gets progressively worse.
>
You can speed up the process by initially setting the mountpoint to 'legacy'.
It's not the creation that takes that much time, it's mounting
14 matches
Mail list logo
