Simple test - mkfile 8gb now and see where the data goes... :)

Victor Latushkin wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Leon,

Thursday, May 10, 2007, 10:43:27 AM, you wrote:

LM> Hello,

LM> I've got some weird problem: ZFS does not seem to be utilizing
LM> all disks in my pool properly. For some reason, it's only using 2 of the 3 disks in my pool:

LM>                capacity     operations    bandwidth
LM> pool         used  avail   read  write   read  write
LM> ----------  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
LM> database    8.48G  1.35T    202      0  12.4M      0
LM>   c0t1d0    4.30G   460G    103      0  6.21M      0
LM>   c0t3d0    4.12G   460G     96      0  6.00M      0
LM>   c0t2d0    54.9M   464G      2      0   190K      0
LM> ----------  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----

LM> I've added all the disks at the same time, so it's not like the
LM> last disk was added later. Any ideas on what might be causing this ? I'm using solaris express b62. LM> Your third disks is 4GB larger that first two disks and ZFS tries to
"load-balance" data so that you can fill up all devices. As you've
already have about 4GB on each of the first two disks ZFS should start
to use third disks after copying addtitional data.

No, it is not - other two disks have 4G out of 464G used, and disk in question has only 55M used. So for me it does not look like weighting problem. This is something else I believe.

I'm not sure but i suspect this may be somehow related to meta data allocation, given that ZFS stores two copies for file system meta data. But this is nothing more than a wild guess.

Leon, What kind of data is stored in this pool? What Solaris version are you using? How is your pool configured?

Cheers,
Victor
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Reply via email to