Paul Boven wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We've building a storage system that should have about 2TB of storage > and good sequential write speed. The server side is a Sun X4200 running > Solaris 10u4 (plus yesterday's recommended patch cluster), the array we > bought is a Transtec Provigo 510 12-disk array. The disks are SATA, and > it's connected to the Sun through U320-scsi.
A lot of improvements in this area are in the latest SXCE builds. Can you try this test on b77? I'm not sure what the schedule is for backporting these changes to S10. -- richard > Now the raidbox was sold to us as doing JBOD and various other raid > levels, but JBOD turns out to mean 'create a single-disk stripe for > every drive'. Which works, after a fashion: When using a 12-drive zfs > with raidz and 1 hotspare, I get 132MB/s write performance, with raidz2 > it's still 112MB/s. If instead I configure the array as a Raid-50 > through the hardware raid controller, I can only manage 72MB/s. > So at a first glance, this seems a good case for zfs. > > Unfortunately, if I then pull a disk from the zfs array, it will keep > trying to write to this disk, and will never activate the hot-spare. So > a zpool status will then show the pool as 'degraded', one drive marked > as unavailable - and the hot-spare still marked as available. Write > performance also drops to about 32MB/s. > > If I then try to activate the hot-spare by hand (zpool replace <broken > disk> <hot spare>) the resilvering starts, but never makes it past 10% - > it seems to restart all the time. As this box is not in production yet, > and I'm the only user on it, I'm 100% sure that there is nothing > happening on the zfs filesystem during the resilvering - no reads, > writes and certainly no snapshots. > > In /var/adm/messages, I see this message repeated several times each minute: > Nov 12 17:30:52 ddd scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: > /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci1022,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/pci1000,[EMAIL > PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 (sd47): > Nov 12 17:30:52 ddd offline or reservation conflict > > Why isn't this enough for zfs to switch over to the hotspare? > I've tried disabling (setting to write-thru) the write-cache on the > array box, but that didn't make any difference to the behaviour either. > > I'd appreciate any insights or hints on how to proceed with this - > should I even be trying to use zfs in this situation? > > Regards, Paul Boven. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
