To: Stephan Budach; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL
> -Original Message-
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Stephan Budach
> Sent: Wednesday, December
> -Original Message-
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Stephan Budach
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 5:37 AM
> To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Subject: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD
On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Khushil Dep wrote:
> "Friends don't let friends disable the ZIL" - right Richard? :-)
>
>
Or, if you care about your data enough to bother with RAID, don't
disable the ZIL :-)
-- richard
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs
"Friends don't let friends disable the ZIL" - right Richard? :-)
On 24 Dec 2010 20:34, "Richard Elling" wrote:
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Dec 22, 2010, at 8:57 PM, Bill Werner wrote:
>>> got it attached to a UPS with very conservative
>> shut-down timing. Or
>>> are there other host failures aside from power a
>> ZIL would be
>>> vulnerable too (system hard-locks?)?
>>
>> Correct, a system hard-lock is another example...
>
> H
On Thu, Dec 23 at 10:49, Christopher George wrote:
My assumption was stated in the paragraph prior, i.e. vendor promised
random write IOPS. Based on the inquires we receive, most *actually*
expect an OCZ SSD to perform as specified which is 50K 4KB
random writes for both the Vertex 2 EX and the
> You're assuming that the "into an empty device" performance is
> required by their application.
My assumption was stated in the paragraph prior, i.e. vendor promised
random write IOPS. Based on the inquires we receive, most *actually*
expect an OCZ SSD to perform as specified which is 50K 4KB
On Thu, Dec 23 at 17:11, Deano wrote:
Currently firmware is meant to help conventional file system usage. However
ZIL isn't normal usage and as such *IF* and it's a big if, we can
effectively bypass the firmware trying to be clever or at least help it be
clever then we can avoid the downgrade ove
On Thu, Dec 23 at 9:14, Erik Trimble wrote:
The longer-term solution is to have SSDs change how they are
designed, moving away from the current one-page-of-multiple-blocks as
the atomic entity of writing, and straight to a one-block-per-page
setup. Don't hold your breath.
Will never happen
On Wed, Dec 22 at 23:29, Christopher George wrote:
Would having to perform a Secure Erase every hour, day, or even
week really be the most cost effective use of an administrators time?
You're assuming that the "into an empty device" performance is
required by their application.
For many users,
. They
certainly exist in closed source form...
Deano
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson
Sent: 23 December 2010 15:46
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5
ng.
Bye,
Deano
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Christopher George
Sent: 23 December 2010 16:46
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL
> However, th
> However, this *can* be overcome by frequently re-formatting the SSD (not
> the Solaris format, a low-level format using a vendor-supplied utility).
For those looking to "Secure Erase" a OCZ SandForce based SSD to reclaim
performance, the following OCZ Forum thread might be of interest:
http:/
form...
Deano
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson
Sent: 23 December 2010 15:46
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL
On Thu, Dec 23, 20
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 07:35:29AM -0800, Deano wrote:
> If anybody does know of any source to the secure erase/reformatters,
> I’ll happily volunteer to do the port and then maintain it.
>
> I’m currently in talks with several SSD and driver chip hardware
> peeps with regard getting datasheets fo
> > got it attached to a UPS with very conservative
> shut-down timing. Or
> > are there other host failures aside from power a
> ZIL would be
> > vulnerable too (system hard-locks?)?
>
> Correct, a system hard-lock is another example...
How about comparing a non-battery backed ZIL to running a Z
'Amore
Sent: 23 December 2010 15:22
To: Erik Trimble; Christopher George
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL
We should get the reformatter(s) ported to illumos/solaris, if source is
available. Something to consider.
- Garrett
-O
@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL
On 12/22/2010 7:05 AM, Christopher George wrote:
>> I'm not sure if TRIM will work with ZFS.
> Neither ZFS nor the ZIL code in particular support TRIM.
>
>> I was concerned that with trim support the SSD
> To the OP: First off, what do you mean by "sync=disabled"???
I believe he is referring to ZIL synchronicity (PSARC/2010/108).
http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2010/108/20100401_neil.perrin
The following presentation by Robert Milkowski does an excellent job of
placing in a larger cont
; boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Erik Trimble
> > Sent: 星期四, 十二月 23, 2010 14:36
> > To: Christopher George
> > Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL
> >
> > On 12/22/2010 7:05 AM, Christopher George w
eorge
> Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL
>
> On 12/22/2010 7:05 AM, Christopher George wrote:
> >> I'm not sure if TRIM will work with ZFS.
> > Neither ZFS nor the ZIL code in particular support TRIM.
>
> It's generally a simple thing, but requires pulling the SSD from the
> server, connecting it to either a Linux or Windows box, running
> the reformatter, then replacing the SSD. Which, is a PITA.
This procedure is more commonly known as a "Secure Erase". And it
will return a Flash based SSD
On 12/22/2010 7:05 AM, Christopher George wrote:
I'm not sure if TRIM will work with ZFS.
Neither ZFS nor the ZIL code in particular support TRIM.
I was concerned that with trim support the SSD life and
write throughput will get affected.
Your concerns about sustainable write performance (IOP
On 12/22/2010 10:04 PM, Christopher George wrote:
How about comparing a non-battery backed ZIL to running a
ZFS dataset with sync=disabled. Which is more risky?
Most likely, the 3.5" SSD's on-board volatile (not power protected)
memory would be small relative to the transaction group (txg) size
> How about comparing a non-battery backed ZIL to running a
> ZFS dataset with sync=disabled. Which is more risky?
Most likely, the 3.5" SSD's on-board volatile (not power protected)
memory would be small relative to the transaction group (txg) size
and thus less "risky" than sync=disabled.
Best
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 01:43:35PM +, Jabbar wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I was thinking of buying a couple of SSD's until I found out that Trim is
>only supported with SATA drives.
>
Yes, because TRIM is ATA command. SATA means Serial ATA.
SCSI (SAS) drives have "WRITE SAME" command, which
> got it attached to a UPS with very conservative shut-down timing. Or
> are there other host failures aside from power a ZIL would be
> vulnerable too (system hard-locks?)?
Correct, a system hard-lock is another example...
Best regards,
Christopher George
Founder/CTO
www.ddrdrive.com
--
This m
> The ZIL accelerator's requirements differ from the L2ARC, as it's very
> purpose is to guarantee *all* data written to the log can be replayed
> (on next reboot) in case of host failure.
Ah, so this would be why say a super-capacitor backed SSD can be very
helpful, as it will have some backup po
> I actually bought a SF-1200 based OCZ Agility 2 (60G)...
> Why are these not recommended?
The OCZ Agility 2 or any SF-1200 based SSD is an excellent choice for
the L2ARC. As on-board volatile memory does *not* need power protection
because the L2ARC contents are not required to survive a host p
On Dec 22, 2010, at 09:55, Krunal Desai wrote:
I actually bought a SF-1200 based OCZ Agility 2 (60G) for use as a
ZIL/L2ARC (haven't installed it yet however, definitely jumped the gun
on this purchase...) based on some recommendations from fellow users.
Why are these not recommended? Is it perf
> I'm not sure if TRIM will work with ZFS.
Neither ZFS nor the ZIL code in particular support TRIM.
> I was concerned that with trim support the SSD life and
> write throughput will get affected.
Your concerns about sustainable write performance (IOPS)
for a Flash based SSD are valid, the result
On Dec 22, 2010, at 08:43, Jabbar wrote:
I was thinking of buying a couple of SSD's until I found out that
Trim is
only supported with SATA drives. I'm not sure if TRIM will work with
ZFS. I
was concerned that with trim support the SSD life and write
throughput will
get affected.
Doesn't
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 05:43:35AM -0800, Jabbar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was thinking of buying a couple of SSD's until I found out that Trim is only
> supported with SATA drives. I'm not sure if TRIM will work with ZFS. I was
> concerned that with trim support the SSD life and write throughput wil
> As of yet, I have only found 3.5" models with the Sandforce 1200, which was
> not recommended on this list.
I actually bought a SF-1200 based OCZ Agility 2 (60G) for use as a
ZIL/L2ARC (haven't installed it yet however, definitely jumped the gun
on this purchase...) based on some recommendations
Hello,
I was thinking of buying a couple of SSD's until I found out that Trim is
only supported with SATA drives. I'm not sure if TRIM will work with ZFS. I
was concerned that with trim support the SSD life and write throughput will
get affected.
Doesn't anybody have any thoughts on this?
On 22
Am 22.12.10 12:41, schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:36:48AM +0100, Stephan Budach wrote:
Hello all,
I am shopping around for 3.5" SSDs that I can mount into my storage and
use as ZIL drives.
As of yet, I have only found 3.5" models with the Sandforce 1200, whi
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:36:48AM +0100, Stephan Budach wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>I am shopping around for 3.5" SSDs that I can mount into my storage and
>use as ZIL drives.
>As of yet, I have only found 3.5" models with the Sandforce 1200, which
>was not recommended on this list.
We've always bought 2.5" and adapters for the super-micro cradles - works
well, no issues to report here.
Normally Intel's or Samsung though we also use STECH.
---
W. A. Khushil Dep - khushil@gmail.com - 07905374843
Visit my blog at http://www.khushil.com/
On 22 December 2010 10:36, S
Hello all,
I am shopping around for 3.5" SSDs that I can mount into my storage and
use as ZIL drives.
As of yet, I have only found 3.5" models with the Sandforce 1200, which
was not recommended on this list.
Does anyone maybe know of a model that has the Sandforce 1500 and is
3.5"? Or any othe
39 matches
Mail list logo
