On May 21, 2010, at 7:03 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>> shouldn't the newer server have LESS load?
>> Please forgive my ubernoobness.
>
> Depends on what it's doing!
>
> Load average is really how many process are waiting to run, so it's
> no
i only care about the most recent snapshot, as this is a growing video
collection.
i do have snapshots, but i only keep them for when/if i accidently delete
something, or rename something wrong.
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Thomas Bur
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> yah, it seems that rsync is faster for what i need anywaysat least right
> now...
If you don't have snapshots you want to keep in the new copy, then probably...
-B
--
Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com
_
yah, unfortunately this is the first send. i'm trying to send 9 TB of data.
It really sucks because i was at 6 TB when it lost power
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Brandon High wrote:
> You can "resume" a send if the destination has a snapshot in common with
> the source. If you don't, t
You can "resume" a send if the destination has a snapshot in common with the
source. If you don't, there's nothing you can do.
It probably taking a while to restart because the sends that were
interrupted need to be rolled back.
Sent from my Nexus One.
On May 21, 2010 9:44 PM, "Thomas Burgess"
well it wasn't.
it was running pretty slow.
i had one "really big" filesystemwith rsync i'm able to do multiple
streams and it's moving much faster
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 05/22/10 05:22 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>
>> yah, it seems that rsync is faster for
On 05/22/10 05:22 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
yah, it seems that rsync is faster for what i need anywaysat least
right now...
ZFS send/receive should run at wire speed for a Gig-E link.
Ian.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.or
extended device statistics
r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b device
0.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.0 983.9 0 0 fd0
3.05.5 152.2 67.8 0.0 0.05.01.2 1 1 c8t1d0
41.33.4 1288.3 69.1 0.1 0.12.73.
yah, it seems that rsync is faster for what i need anywaysat least right
now...
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 05/22/10 04:44 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>
>> I can't tell you for sure
>>
>> For some reason the server lost power and it's taking forever to come ba
On 05/22/10 04:44 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
I can't tell you for sure
For some reason the server lost power and it's taking forever to come
back up.
(i'm really not sure what happened)
anyways, this leads me to my next couple questions:
Is there any way to "resume" a zfs send/recv
I can't tell you for sure
For some reason the server lost power and it's taking forever to come back
up.
(i'm really not sure what happened)
anyways, this leads me to my next couple questions:
Is there any way to "resume" a zfs send/recv
Why is it taking so long for the server to come
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> is 3 zfs recv's random?
It might be. What do a few reports of 'iostat -xcn 30' look like?
-B
--
Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://m
yeah, i'm aware of the performance aspects. I use these servers as mostly
hd video servers for my house...they don't need to perform amazingly. I
originally went with the setup on the old server because of everything i had
read about performance with wide stripes...in all honesty it performed
ama
is 3 zfs recv's random?
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Thomas Burgess
> wrote:
> > shouldn't the newer server have LESS load?
> > Please forgive my ubernoobness.
>
> Depends on what it's doing!
>
> Load average is really how many proce
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> shouldn't the newer server have LESS load?
> Please forgive my ubernoobness.
Depends on what it's doing!
Load average is really how many process are waiting to run, so it's
not always a useful metric. If there are processes waiting on disk
On 05/22/10 12:54 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
Something i've been meaning to ask
I'm transfering some data from my older server to my newer one. the
older server has a socket 775 intel Q9550 8 gb ddr2 800 20 1TB drives
in raidz2 (3 vdevs, 2 with 7 drives one with 6) connected to 3
AOC-SAT2
Something i've been meaning to ask
I'm transfering some data from my older server to my newer one. the older
server has a socket 775 intel Q9550 8 gb ddr2 800 20 1TB drives in raidz2 (3
vdevs, 2 with 7 drives one with 6) connected to 3 AOC-SAT2-MV8 cards spread
as evenly across them as i coul
here ya go (sorry for the late reply)
wonsl...@wonslung-raidz2:~$ kstat -m cpu_info -c misc
module: cpu_infoinstance: 0
name: cpu_info0 class:misc
brand AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 6128
cache_id
>On 05-17-10, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>psrinfo -pv shows:
>
>The physical processor has 8 virtual processors (0-7)
> x86 (AuthenticAMD 100F91 family 16 model 9 step 1 clock 200 MHz)
> AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 6128 [ Socket: G34 ]
>
That's odd.
Please try this :
# kstat -m
ok, well this was part of the problem.
I disabled the Sata IDE combined mode and reinstalled opensolaris (i tried
to just disable it but osol wouldn't boot)
now the drive connected to the SSD DOES show up in cfgadm so it seems to be
in sata mode...but the drives connected to the reverse breakout
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> In the bios i can select from:
> Native IDE
> AMD_AHCI
This is probably what you want. AHCI is supposed to be chipset agnostic.
> I also have an option called "Sate IDE combined mode"
See if there's anything in the docs about what this
no.it doesn't. The only sata ports that show up are the ones connected
to the backpane via the reverse breakout sas cableand they show as
emptyso i'm thinking that opensolaris isn't working with the chipset
sata.
In the bios i can select from:
Native IDE
AMD_AHCI
RAID
Legacy IDE
age -
> From: Thomas Burgess
> Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:09 pm
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Opteron 6100? Does it work with opensolaris?
> To: Orvar Korvar
> Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
>
>
> > Well i just wanted to let everyone know that preliminary results are
, it shows what it should show at the
bottom)
I'll capture all that later and post it.
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: Thomas Burgess
> Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:09 pm
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Opteron 610
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> well, i haven't had a lot of time to work with this...but i'm having trouble
> getting the onboard sata to work in anything but NATIVE IDE mode.
Have you tried going straight from the motherboard to a drive too?
Take as many pieces out of t
On 05/17/10 12:08 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
well, i haven't had a lot of time to work with this...but i'm having
trouble getting the onboard sata to work in anything but NATIVE IDE mode.
I'm not sure exactly what the problem isi'm wondering if i bought
the wrong cable (i have a norco 4220
well, i haven't had a lot of time to work with this...but i'm having trouble
getting the onboard sata to work in anything but NATIVE IDE mode.
I'm not sure exactly what the problem isi'm wondering if i bought the
wrong cable (i have a norco 4220 case so the drives connect via a sas
sff-8087 o
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Burgess
Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Opteron 6100? Does it work with opensolaris?
To: Orvar Korvar
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Well i just wanted to let everyone know that preliminary results are good.
>
Well i just wanted to let everyone know that preliminary results are good.
The livecd booted, all important things seem to be recognized. It sees all
16 gb of ram i installed and all 8 cores of my opteron 6128
The only real shocker is how loud the norco RPC-4220 fans are (i have
another machine w
I ordered it. It should be here monday or tuesday. When i get everything
built and installed, i'll report back. I'm very excited. I am not
expecting problems now that i've talked to supermicro about it. Solaris 10
runs for them so i would imagine opensolaris should be fine too.
On Thu, May 13
Great! Please report here so we can read about your impressions.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>> >
>> Bit of a chicken and egg that, isn't it?
>>
>> You need to run the tool to see if the board's worth buying and you need
>> to buy the board to run the tool!
>>
>
> *Somebody* has to be that first early adopter. After that, we all get
> to ride on their experience.
I am sure the Tier-1 st
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 13:25 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 05/13/10 12:46 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> > I've gotten a couple of the newest prototype AMD systems, with the C34
> > and G34 sockets. All have run various flavors of OpenSolaris quite
> > well, with the exception of a couple of flaky netw
On 05/13/10 12:46 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
I've gotten a couple of the newest prototype AMD systems, with the C34
and G34 sockets. All have run various flavors of OpenSolaris quite
well, with the exception of a couple of flaky network problems, which
we've tracked down to pre-production NIC hardw
I've gotten a couple of the newest prototype AMD systems, with the C34
and G34 sockets. All have run various flavors of OpenSolaris quite
well, with the exception of a couple of flaky network problems, which
we've tracked down to pre-production NIC hardware and early-access
drivers. This is a sim
On 12/05/10 11:21 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
Now wait just a minute. You're casting aspersions on
stuff here without saying what you're talking about,
still less where you're getting your info from.
Be specific - put up, or shut up.
I think he was just trying to tell me that m
> "jcm" == James C McPherson writes:
>> storage controllers are more difficult for driver support.
jcm> Be specific - put up, or shut up.
marvell controller hangs machine when a drive is unplugged
marvell controller does not support NCQ
marvell driver is closed-source blob
sil3124
>From: James C. McPherson [mailto:james.mcpher...@oracle.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 2:28 AM
>
>On 12/05/10 03:18 PM, Geoff Nordli wrote:
>
>> I have been wondering what the compatibility is like on OpenSolaris.
>> My perception is basic network driver support is decent, but storage
>
The problem is the Solaris team and lsi have put a lot of work into the new
2008 cards. Claiming there are issues without listing specific bugs they can
address is, I'm sure, frustrating to say the least.
On May 12, 2010 8:22 AM, "Thomas Burgess" wrote:
>>
>
> Now wait just a minute. You're cast
>
>
>>
> Now wait just a minute. You're casting aspersions on
> stuff here without saying what you're talking about,
> still less where you're getting your info from.
>
> Be specific - put up, or shut up.
>
>
I think he was just trying to tell me that my cpu should be fine, that the
only thing whic
On 12/05/10 03:18 PM, Geoff Nordli wrote:
I have been wondering what the compatibility is like on OpenSolaris. My
perception is basic network driver support is decent, but storage
controllers are more difficult for driver support.
Now wait just a minute. You're casting aspersions on
stuff
This is how i understand it.
I know the network cards are well supported and i know my storage cards are
supportedthe onboard sata may work and it may not. If it does, great,
i'll use it for booting, if not, this board has 2 onboard bootable USB
sticksluckily usb seems to work regardless
On Behalf Of James C. McPherson
>Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:41 PM
>
>On 12/05/10 10:32 AM, Michael DeMan wrote:
>> I agree on the motherboard and peripheral chipset issue.
>>
>> This, and the last generation AMD quad/six core motherboards
> > all seem to use the AMD SP56x0/SP5100 chipset, whic
Well i went ahead and ordered the board. I will report back soon with the
results..i'm pretty excited. These CPU's seem great on paper.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> the onboard sata is a secondary issue. If i need to, i'll boot from the
> oboard usb slots. I have
the onboard sata is a secondary issue. If i need to, i'll boot from the
oboard usb slots. I have 2 LSI 1068e based sas controllers which i will be
using.
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:40 PM, James C. McPherson wrote:
> On 12/05/10 10:32 AM, Michael DeMan wrote:
>
>> I agree on the motherboard and
On 12/05/10 10:32 AM, Michael DeMan wrote:
I agree on the motherboard and peripheral chipset issue.
This, and the last generation AMD quad/six core motherboards
> all seem to use the AMD SP56x0/SP5100 chipset, which I can't
> find much information about support on for either OpenSolaris or Free
I agree on the motherboard and peripheral chipset issue.
This, and the last generation AMD quad/six core motherboards all seem to use
the AMD SP56x0/SP5100 chipset, which I can't find much information about
support on for either OpenSolaris or FreeBSD.
Another issue is the LSI SAS2008 chipset f
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> I'm specificially looking at this motherboard:
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182230
I'd be more concerned that the motherboard and it's attached
peripherals are unsupported than the processor. Solaris can handle
- "Thomas Burgess" skrev:
I was looking at building a new ZFS based server for my media files and i was
wondering if this cpu was supported...i googled and i coudlnt' find much info
about it.
I'm specificially looking at this motherboard:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?I
I was looking at building a new ZFS based server for my media files and i
was wondering if this cpu was supported...i googled and i coudlnt' find much
info about it.
I'm specificially looking at this motherboard:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182230
I'd hate to buy i
50 matches
Mail list logo
