Re: Using GTP and glabel for ZFS arrays
> Easiest way to create sparse eg 20 GB assuming test.img doesn't exist > already No no no. Easiest way to do what you want to do: mdconfig -a -t malloc -s 3t -u 0 mdconfig -a -t malloc -s 3t -u 1 Just make sure to offline and delete mds ASAP, unless you have 6TB of RAM waiting to be filled ;) - note that with RAIDZ2 you have no redundancy with two fake disks gone, and if going with RAIDZ1 this won't work at all. I can't figure out a safe way (data redundancy all the way) of doing things with only 2 free disks and 3.5TB data - third disk would make things easier, fourth would make them trivial; note that temporary disks 3 and 4 don't have to be 2TB, 1.5TB will do. I've done this dozen of times, had no problems, no gray hair, and not a bit of data lost ;) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: install touching mbr
Hello, On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 22:28:25 -0700 Randi Harper wrote: > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Bruce Cran wrote: > > On Saturday 03 April 2010 21:58:56 Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 05:48:12PM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: > >> > I just installed a 8.0R amd64 from memstick. when asked, I said > >> > to leave mbr untouched. when I rebooted, it was freebsd > >> > bootloader that was on control. this options is not what I think > >> > it should, or there is really a issue here ? > >> > >> I can confirm this behaviour. Someone may have broken something > >> when tinkering around in that part of sysinstall (since the > >> Standard vs. BootMgr options were moved around compared to > >> previous releases). > > > > I have a patch at http://reviews.freebsdish.org/r/15/ waiting to be > > committed. I believe the "None" option won't change the bootcode > > itself but will still mark the FreeBSD partition as active. > > > > -- > > Bruce Cran > > I disagree with some of the wording. Specifically, lines 100-102 of > usr.sbin/sade/menus.c > > "If you will only have FreeBSD on the machine the boot manager is not > needed and it slows down the boot while offering you the choice of > which operating system to boot." > > ^^ not 100% true, as the boot manager also provides the option of PXE > booting. This statement seems excessively wordy and unnecessary. > > Also, should this be broken up into two patches? One for the change in > sade, the other for sysinstall? I'm not picky about this, but you are > fixing two issues in two separate programs. Any chance that this patch review was completed, approved and made it into 8.1 Release? Thanks. Regards, S Roberts > > -- randi > ___ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Using GTP and glabel for ZFS arrays
On 7/24/2010 7:56 AM, Pawel Tyll wrote: Easiest way to create sparse eg 20 GB assuming test.img doesn't exist already You trim posts too much... there is no way to compare without opening another email. Adam wrote: truncate -s 20g test.img ls -sk test.img 1 test.img No no no. Easiest way to do what you want to do: mdconfig -a -t malloc -s 3t -u 0 mdconfig -a -t malloc -s 3t -u 1 In what way is that easier? Now I have /dev/md0 and /dev/md1 as opposed to two sparse files. Just make sure to offline and delete mds ASAP, unless you have 6TB of RAM waiting to be filled ;) - note that with RAIDZ2 you have no redundancy with two fake disks gone, and if going with RAIDZ1 this won't work at all. I can't figure out a safe way (data redundancy all the way) of doing things with only 2 free disks and 3.5TB data - third disk would make things easier, fourth would make them trivial; note that temporary disks 3 and 4 don't have to be 2TB, 1.5TB will do. The lack of redundancy is noted and accepted. Thanks. :) -- Dan Langille - http://langille.org/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Using GTP and glabel for ZFS arrays
On 7/22/2010 4:11 AM, Dan Langille wrote:
On 7/22/2010 4:03 AM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Dan Langille wrote:
On 7/22/2010 3:30 AM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Dan Langille wrote:
On 7/22/2010 2:59 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
On 22.07.2010 10:32, Dan Langille wrote:
I'm not sure of the criteria, but this is what I'm running:
atapci0: port 0xdc00-0xdc0f mem
0xfbeffc00-0xfbeffc7f,0xfbef-0xfbef7fff irq 17 at device 4.0 on
pci7
atapci1: port 0xac00-0xac0f mem
0xfbbffc00-0xfbbffc7f,0xfbbf-0xfbbf7fff irq 19 at device 4.0 on
pci3
I added ahci_load="YES" to loader.conf and rebooted. Now I see:
You can add siis_load="YES" to loader.conf for SiI 3124.
Ahh, thank you.
I'm afraid to do that now, before I label my ZFS drives for fear that
the ZFS array will be messed up. But I do plan to do that for the
system after my plan is implemented. Thank you. :)
You may even get hotplug support if you're lucky. :)
I just built a box and gave it a spin with the "old" ata stuff and then
with the "new" (AHCI) stuff. It does perform a bit better and my BIOS
claims it supports hotplug with ahci enabled as well... Still have to
test that.
Well, I don't have anything to support hotplug. All my stuff is
internal.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs430.ash1/23778_106837706002537_10289239443_171753_3508473_n.jpg
The frankenbox I'm testing on is a retrofitted 1U (it had a scsi
backplane, now has none).
I am not certain, but I think with 8.1 (which it's running) and all the
cam integration stuff, hotplug is possible. Is a special backplane
required? I seriously don't know... I'm going to give it a shot though.
Oh, you also might get NCQ. Try:
[r...@h21 /tmp]# camcontrol tags ada0
(pass0:ahcich0:0:0:0): device openings: 32
# camcontrol tags ada0
(pass0:siisch2:0:0:0): device openings: 31
resending with this:
ada{0..4} give the above.
# camcontrol tags ada5
(pass5:ahcich0:0:0:0): device openings: 32
That's part of the gmirror array for the OS, along with ad6 which has
similar output.
And again with this output from one of the ZFS drives:
# camcontrol identify ada0
pass0: ATA-8 SATA 2.x device
pass0: 300.000MB/s transfers (SATA 2.x, UDMA6, PIO 8192bytes)
protocol ATA/ATAPI-8 SATA 2.x
device model Hitachi HDS722020ALA330
firmware revision JKAOA28A
serial number JK1130YAH531ST
WWN 5000cca221d068d5
cylinders 16383
heads 16
sectors/track 63
sector size logical 512, physical 512, offset 0
LBA supported 268435455 sectors
LBA48 supported 3907029168 sectors
PIO supported PIO4
DMA supported WDMA2 UDMA6
media RPM 7200
Feature Support Enable Value Vendor
read ahead yes yes
write cache yes yes
flush cache yes yes
overlap no
Tagged Command Queuing (TCQ) no no
Native Command Queuing (NCQ) yes 32 tags
SMART yes yes
microcode download yes yes
security yes no
power management yes yes
advanced power management yes no 0/0x00
automatic acoustic management yes no 254/0xFE 128/0x80
media status notification no no
power-up in Standby yes no
write-read-verify no no 0/0x0
unload no no
free-fall no no
data set management (TRIM) no
Does this support NCQ?
--
Dan Langille - http://langille.org/
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Using GTP and glabel for ZFS arrays
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:12:54PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
> On 7/22/2010 4:11 AM, Dan Langille wrote:
> >On 7/22/2010 4:03 AM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> >>On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Dan Langille wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 7/22/2010 3:30 AM, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Dan Langille wrote:
>
> >On 7/22/2010 2:59 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> >>On 22.07.2010 10:32, Dan Langille wrote:
> >>>I'm not sure of the criteria, but this is what I'm running:
> >>>
> >>>atapci0: port 0xdc00-0xdc0f mem
> >>>0xfbeffc00-0xfbeffc7f,0xfbef-0xfbef7fff irq 17 at device 4.0 on
> >>>pci7
> >>>
> >>>atapci1: port 0xac00-0xac0f mem
> >>>0xfbbffc00-0xfbbffc7f,0xfbbf-0xfbbf7fff irq 19 at device 4.0 on
> >>>pci3
> >>>
> >>>I added ahci_load="YES" to loader.conf and rebooted. Now I see:
> >>
> >>You can add siis_load="YES" to loader.conf for SiI 3124.
> >
> >Ahh, thank you.
> >
> >I'm afraid to do that now, before I label my ZFS drives for fear that
> >the ZFS array will be messed up. But I do plan to do that for the
> >system after my plan is implemented. Thank you. :)
>
> You may even get hotplug support if you're lucky. :)
>
> I just built a box and gave it a spin with the "old" ata stuff and then
> with the "new" (AHCI) stuff. It does perform a bit better and my BIOS
> claims it supports hotplug with ahci enabled as well... Still have to
> test that.
> >>>
> >>>Well, I don't have anything to support hotplug. All my stuff is
> >>>internal.
> >>>
> >>>http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs430.ash1/23778_106837706002537_10289239443_171753_3508473_n.jpg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>The frankenbox I'm testing on is a retrofitted 1U (it had a scsi
> >>backplane, now has none).
> >>
> >>I am not certain, but I think with 8.1 (which it's running) and all the
> >>cam integration stuff, hotplug is possible. Is a special backplane
> >>required? I seriously don't know... I'm going to give it a shot though.
> >>
> >>Oh, you also might get NCQ. Try:
> >>
> >>[r...@h21 /tmp]# camcontrol tags ada0
> >>(pass0:ahcich0:0:0:0): device openings: 32
> >
> ># camcontrol tags ada0
> >(pass0:siisch2:0:0:0): device openings: 31
> >
> >resending with this:
> >
> >ada{0..4} give the above.
> >
> ># camcontrol tags ada5
> >(pass5:ahcich0:0:0:0): device openings: 32
> >
> >That's part of the gmirror array for the OS, along with ad6 which has
> >similar output.
> >
> >And again with this output from one of the ZFS drives:
> >
> ># camcontrol identify ada0
> >pass0: ATA-8 SATA 2.x device
> >pass0: 300.000MB/s transfers (SATA 2.x, UDMA6, PIO 8192bytes)
> >
> >protocol ATA/ATAPI-8 SATA 2.x
> >device model Hitachi HDS722020ALA330
> >firmware revision JKAOA28A
> >serial number JK1130YAH531ST
> >WWN 5000cca221d068d5
> >cylinders 16383
> >heads 16
> >sectors/track 63
> >sector size logical 512, physical 512, offset 0
> >LBA supported 268435455 sectors
> >LBA48 supported 3907029168 sectors
> >PIO supported PIO4
> >DMA supported WDMA2 UDMA6
> >media RPM 7200
> >
> >Feature Support Enable Value Vendor
> >read ahead yes yes
> >write cache yes yes
> >flush cache yes yes
> >overlap no
> >Tagged Command Queuing (TCQ) no no
> >Native Command Queuing (NCQ) yes 32 tags
> >SMART yes yes
> >microcode download yes yes
> >security yes no
> >power management yes yes
> >advanced power management yes no 0/0x00
> >automatic acoustic management yes no 254/0xFE 128/0x80
> >media status notification no no
> >power-up in Standby yes no
> >write-read-verify no no 0/0x0
> >unload no no
> >free-fall no no
> >data set management (TRIM) no
>
> Does this support NCQ?
Does *what* support NCQ? The output above, despite having lost its
whitespace formatting, indicates the drive does support NCQ and due to
using CAM (via ahci.ko or siis.ko) has NCQ in use:
> >Native Command Queuing (NCQ) yes 32 tags
A binary verification (does it/does it not) is also visible in your
kernel log, ex:
ada2: Command Queueing enabled
--
| Jeremy Chadwick j...@parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Using GTP and glabel for ZFS arrays
On 7/23/2010 7:42 AM, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: Dan Langille wrote: Thank you to all the helpful discussion. It's been very helpful and educational. Based on the advice and suggestions, I'm going to adjust my original plan as follows. [ ... ] Since I still have the medium-sized ZFS array on the bench, testing this GPT setup seemed like a good idea. bonnie -s 5 The hardware's a Supermicro X8DTL-iF m/b + 12Gb memory, 2x 5502 Xeons, 3x Supermicro USASLP-L8I 3G SAS controllers and 24x Hitachi 2Tb drives. Partitioning the drives with the command-line: gpart add -s 1800G -t freebsd-zfs -l disk00 da0[1] gave the following results with bonnie-64: (Bonnie -r -s 5000|2|5)[2] What test is this? I just installed benchmarks/bonnie and I see no -r option. Right now, I'm trying this: bonnie -s 5 -- Dan Langille - http://langille.org/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Using GTP and glabel for ZFS arrays
On 24/07/2010 21:35, Dan Langille wrote: On 7/23/2010 7:42 AM, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: Dan Langille wrote: Thank you to all the helpful discussion. It's been very helpful and educational. Based on the advice and suggestions, I'm going to adjust my original plan as follows. [ ... ] Since I still have the medium-sized ZFS array on the bench, testing this GPT setup seemed like a good idea. bonnie -s 5 The hardware's a Supermicro X8DTL-iF m/b + 12Gb memory, 2x 5502 Xeons, 3x Supermicro USASLP-L8I 3G SAS controllers and 24x Hitachi 2Tb drives. Partitioning the drives with the command-line: gpart add -s 1800G -t freebsd-zfs -l disk00 da0[1] gave the following results with bonnie-64: (Bonnie -r -s 5000|2|5)[2] What test is this? I just installed benchmarks/bonnie and I see no -r option. Right now, I'm trying this: bonnie -s 5 http://code.google.com/p/bonnie-64/ -- JH-R ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
gpart -b 34 versus gpart -b 1024
You may have seen my cunning plan: http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=883310+0+current/freebsd-stable I've been doing some testing today. The first of my tests comparing partitions aligned on a 4KB boundary are in. I created a 5x2TB zpool, each of which was set up like this: gpart add -b 1024 -s 3906824301 -t freebsd-zfs -l disk01 ada1 or gpart add -b 34 -s 3906824301 -t freebsd-zfs -l disk01 ada1 Repeat for all 5 HDD. And then: zpool create storage raidz2 gpt/disk01 gpt/disk02 gpt/disk03 gpt/disk04 gpt/disk05 Two Bonnie-64 tests: First, with -b 34: # ~dan/bonnie-64-read-only/Bonnie -s 5000 File './Bonnie.12315', size: 524288 Writing with putc()...done Rewriting...done Writing intelligently...done Reading with getc()...done Reading intelligently...done Seeker 1...Seeker 2...Seeker 3...start 'em...done...done...done... ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 5 110.6 80.5 115.3 15.1 60.9 8.5 68.8 46.2 326.7 15.3 469 1.4 And then with -b 1024 # ~dan/bonnie-64-read-only/Bonnie -s 5000 File './Bonnie.21095', size: 524288 Writing with putc()...done Rewriting...^[[1~done Writing intelligently...done Reading with getc()...done Reading intelligently...done Seeker 1...Seeker 2...Seeker 3...start 'em...done...done...done... ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 5 130.9 94.2 118.3 15.6 61.1 8.5 70.1 46.8 241.2 12.7 473 1.4 My reading of this: All M/sec rates are faster except sequential input. Comments? I'll run -s 2 and -s 5 tests overnight and will post them in the morning. Sunday, I'll try creating a 7x2TB array consisting of 5HDD and two sparse files and see how that goes. Here's hoping. Full logs here, including a number of panics: http://beta.freebsddiary.org/zfs-with-gpart.php -- Dan Langille - http://langille.org/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: gpart -b 34 versus gpart -b 1024
On 7/24/2010 10:44 PM, Dan Langille wrote: I'll run -s 2 and -s 5 tests overnight and will post them in the morning. The -s 2 results are in: -b 34: ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 20 114.1 82.7 110.9 14.1 62.5 8.9 73.1 48.8 153.6 9.9 195 0.9 -b 1024: ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 20 111.0 81.2 114.7 15.1 62.6 8.9 71.9 47.9 135.3 8.7 180 1.1 Hmmm, seems like the first test was better... -- Dan Langille - http://langille.org/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: gpart -b 34 versus gpart -b 1024
On 7/24/2010 10:44 PM, Dan Langille wrote: You may have seen my cunning plan: http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=883310+0+current/freebsd-stable I've been doing some testing today. The first of my tests comparing partitions aligned on a 4KB boundary are in. I created a 5x2TB zpool, each of which was set up like this: gpart add -b 1024 -s 3906824301 -t freebsd-zfs -l disk01 ada1 or gpart add -b 34 -s 3906824301 -t freebsd-zfs -l disk01 ada1 Repeat for all 5 HDD. And then: zpool create storage raidz2 gpt/disk01 gpt/disk02 gpt/disk03 gpt/disk04 gpt/disk05 Two Bonnie-64 tests: First, with -b 34: # ~dan/bonnie-64-read-only/Bonnie -s 5000 File './Bonnie.12315', size: 524288 Writing with putc()...done Rewriting...done Writing intelligently...done Reading with getc()...done Reading intelligently...done Seeker 1...Seeker 2...Seeker 3...start 'em...done...done...done... ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 5 110.6 80.5 115.3 15.1 60.9 8.5 68.8 46.2 326.7 15.3 469 1.4 And then with -b 1024 # ~dan/bonnie-64-read-only/Bonnie -s 5000 File './Bonnie.21095', size: 524288 Writing with putc()...done Rewriting...^[[1~done Writing intelligently...done Reading with getc()...done Reading intelligently...done Seeker 1...Seeker 2...Seeker 3...start 'em...done...done...done... ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 5 130.9 94.2 118.3 15.6 61.1 8.5 70.1 46.8 241.2 12.7 473 1.4 My reading of this: All M/sec rates are faster except sequential input. Comments? I'll run -s 2 and -s 5 tests overnight and will post them in the morning. Well, it seems I'm not sleeping yet, so: -b 34 ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 50 113.1 82.4 114.6 15.2 63.4 8.9 72.7 48.2 142.2 9.5 126 0.7 -b 1024 ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU /sec %CPU 50 110.5 81.0 112.8 15.0 62.8 9.0 72.9 48.5 139.7 9.5 144 0.9 Here, the results aren't much better either... am I not aligning this partition correctly? Missing something else? Or... are they both 4K block aligned? -- Dan Langille - http://langille.org/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: gpart -b 34 versus gpart -b 1024
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Dan Langille wrote: > ---Sequential Output ---Sequential Input-- --Random-- > -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks--- >GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU /sec %CPU >50 110.5 81.0 112.8 15.0 62.8 9.0 72.9 48.5 139.7 9.5 144 0.9 > > Here, the results aren't much better either... am I not aligning this > partition correctly? Missing something else? Or... are they both 4K block > aligned? The alignment doesn't apply to all drives, just the 4k WD's and some ssd's. If they were misaligned, you would see a large difference in the tests. A few points one way or other in these is largely meaningless. That being said, if I were you I would set -b 2048(1 MB) as the default, the amount of space wasted is trivial and your partition will always be aligned. People following your tutorials may have a variety of different drives and that setting is safe for all. Windows defaults to this offset for the same reason: DISKPART> list partition Partition ### Type Size Offset - --- --- Partition 1Primary 1116 GB 1024 KB -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
