Re: [zfs-discuss] [dtrace-discuss] dtrace nfs requests on a zfs filesystem
>I was aware of that suggestion but found it so ugly that I never tried it. I >ditched pride and embraced pragmatism. And yes running find did resolve all >names. Could you be so kind and trouble the gentleman down the hall and ask >them what's happening and why? Perhaps something can be done about it in >code. With some pointers I might look into it. The pathnames are cached with the vnode but they are only created when the filename is looked up (open, stat, etc). Find will look up all the files; but without that, it won't know the name. NFSv3 is stateless and the look up could have been done a long time ago (the server might be rebooted). Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Backblaze likes Hitachi Deskstar 5K3000 HDS5C3030ALA630
http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/07/20/petabytes-on-a-budget-v2-0revealing-more-secrets/ Seem to be real 512 Byte sectors, too. -- Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Raidz2 slow read speed (under 5MB/s)
Hello all,
I'm building a file server (or just a storage that I intend to access by
Workgroup from primarily Windows machines) using zfs raidz2 and openindiana
148. I will be using this to stream blu-ray movies and other media, so I will
be happy if I get just 20MB/s reads, which seems like a pretty low standard
considering some people are getting 100+. This is my first time with OI, and
raid, for that matter, so I hope you guys have a little patience for a noob. :)
I figured out how to setup the vdevs and smbshare after some trial and error,
and got my Windows box to see the share. Transferring a 40GB file to the share
yields 55-80MB/s, not earth-shattering, but satisfactory IMO. The problem is
when I transfer the same file back to the Windows box, it went to less than
5MB/s. I then copied a 1GB file, and then moved that 1GB file from the raidz2
drives to the root drive (SSD), in attempt to isolate the problem. That was
less than 5MB/s. The same file, once again, copied from the root drive to the
raidz2 was fast, maybe 70-100MB/s.
The problem here as far as I can tell is either some setting within zfs or the
HBA controller. Or maybe... even the timing issue with WD Green drives
shouldn't create that much disparity.
I've attached the iostat of when activity is idle, when copying from raidz2 to
root ("read"), and for comparison, copying to raidz2 from root ("write").
Please note the intermittent idling in all disks (except 1?) when the file is
copied from the raidz2 volume to anywhere else. I have no idea what that's
about, but the drives will drop to 0 every couple of seconds, and repeat.
My system is as follows:
10 WD20EARS (bad idea? I only found out after I bought them.) in raidz2 config
32GB SSD for root drive for OS install
Supermicro USAS-L8i HBA card (1068E chipset I believe?)
6GB RAM
500 watt power supply
AMD Athlon II X2 260 CPU
Here's my zpool:
pool: rpool
state: ONLINE
scan: none requested
config:
NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
rpool ONLINE 0 0 0
c2t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
pool: solaris
state: ONLINE
scan: none requested
config:
NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
solaris ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz2-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c2t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c2t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
errors: No known data errors
I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could give me some leads on where the
problem might be. I've spent the past 2 days on this, and it's very frustrating
since I would actually be very happy getting even 10MB/s read.
Regards.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Idle-iostat
Description: Binary data
Read-iostat
Description: Binary data
Write-iostat
Description: Binary data
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GUID zpool
Hello All , I am looking for some way change GUID for zpool on unix Solaris SAN , maybe some one know ? We need copy on storage level volumes and open on same mashine . Regards, Evgeny <>___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Raidz2 slow read speed (under 5MB/s)
Have you tried to boot from LiveCD in Solaris 11 Express and compare? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] latest zpool version in solaris 11 express
Am 20.07.11 18:31, schrieb Brandon High: On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: Kidding aside, for anyone finding this thread at a later time, here's the answer. It sounds unnecessarily complex at first, but then I went through it ... Only took like a minute or two. It was exceptionally easy in fact. https://pkg-register.oracle.com Do you need a support contract in order to access the certificate application? I'm getting the following error when I try to get a cert: "There has been a problem with contacting the entitlement server. You will only be able to issue new certificates for public products. Please try again later" Yeah, I think you need a valid CSI. I do have a Solaris Support contract and I had no issues getting my certifcate. Cheers, budy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Raidz2 slow read speed (under 5MB/s)
Do you mean that OI148 might have a bug that Solaris 11 Express might solve? I will download the Solaris 11 Express LiveUSB and give it a shot. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] SSD vs "hybrid" drive - any advice?
I'm looking to upgrade the disk in a high-end laptop (so called "desktop replacement" type). I use it for development work, runing OpenIndiana (native) with lots of ZFS data sets. These "hybrid" drives look kind of interesting, i.e. for about $100, one can get: Seagate Momentus XT ST95005620AS 500GB 7200 RPM 2.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s with NCQ Solid State Hybrid Drive http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148591 And then for about $400 one can get an 250GB SSD, such as: Crucial M4 CT256M4SSD2 2.5" 256GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148443 Anyone have experience with either one? (good or bad) Opinions whether the lower capacity and higher cost of the SSD is justified in terms of performance for things like software builds, etc? Thanks, Gordon ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SSD vs "hybrid" drive - any advice?
Gordon, If I were you, I would choose SSD. I have good experience with Intel 320 SSD. My company use it for L2ARC with good result. And quality is good Rocky -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Ross Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 4:09 PM To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: [zfs-discuss] SSD vs "hybrid" drive - any advice? I'm looking to upgrade the disk in a high-end laptop (so called "desktop replacement" type). I use it for development work, runing OpenIndiana (native) with lots of ZFS data sets. These "hybrid" drives look kind of interesting, i.e. for about $100, one can get: Seagate Momentus XT ST95005620AS 500GB 7200 RPM 2.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s with NCQ Solid State Hybrid Drive http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148591 And then for about $400 one can get an 250GB SSD, such as: Crucial M4 CT256M4SSD2 2.5" 256GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148443 Anyone have experience with either one? (good or bad) Opinions whether the lower capacity and higher cost of the SSD is justified in terms of performance for things like software builds, etc? Thanks, Gordon ___ 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] SSD vs "hybrid" drive - any advice?
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Ross > > Anyone have experience with either one? (good or bad) > > Opinions whether the lower capacity and higher cost of > the SSD is justified in terms of performance for things > like software builds, etc? The hybrid has basically 4G NV cache. The rest is regular hard drive. It will work well if you care about accelerating your boot time and you reboot regularly. But if you don't reboot regularly, and you actually have enough ram in your system that you don't constantly fetch the same sectors over and over... Well the drive can only memorize what it's told to memorize. So it will only memorize things that your OS actually fetches over and over... Which isn't very likely to happen except by repeat reboots. Depends on your behavior patterns. They don't say anything about their algorithms, of course. So it's totally unclear if they use some of the SSD to buffer writes... The hybrid might only benefit reads under the right conditions, and it might not benefit writes at all... Don't really know. My opinion: I'm skeptical about the success of the hybrid drive accelerating performance. I'd like to be proven wrong. Do you have $0.98 change for a $1 bill? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SSD vs "hybrid" drive - any advice?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Gordon Ross wrote: > And then for about $400 one can get an 250GB SSD, such as: > Crucial M4 CT256M4SSD2 2.5" 256GB SATA III MLC Internal Solid State > Drive (SSD) > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148443 > > Anyone have experience with either one? (good or bad) The hybrid drive might accelerate some operations. No guarantees, though. It's about as fast as a WD Velociraptor in some operations, and the same as the regular Seagate 500gb in others. There is a decent review of it at Anandtech. The M4 is pretty decent, though the Vertex 3 and other Sandforce 2000-based drives beat it in benchmarks. Honestly though, you'll probably be very happy with any recent SSD, eg: C300, M4, Intel 320, Intel 510, Sandforce 1200-based (Vertex 2, Phoenix Pro, etc), Sandforce 2200-based (Vertex 3, Corsair Force GT, Patriot Wildfire, etc). -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] revisiting aclmode options
On 7/19/2011 6:37 PM, Daniel Carosone wrote: If there were an acl permission for "set legacy permission bits", as distinct from write_acl, that could be set to "deny" at whatever granularity you needed... That does sound interesting; but given it would most likely require an update to the NFS 4 ACL spec not very probable, particularly in the short term... -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [illumos-Developer] revisiting aclmode options
On 7/19/2011 7:10 PM, Gordon Ross wrote: The idea: A new "aclmode" setting called "discard", meaning that the users don't care at all about the traditional mode bits. A dataset with aclmode=discard would have the chmod system call and NFS setattr do absolutely nothing to the mode bits. The caveat to that are the suid/sgid/sticky bits, which have no corresponding bits in the ACL, and potentially will still need to be manipulated. The details on that still need to be worked out :). The mode bits would be derived from the ACL such that the mode represents the greatest possible access that might be allowed by the ACL, without any consideration of deny entries or group memberships. Is this description different than how the mode bits are currently derived when a ZFS acl is set on an object? -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
