Volodymyr Kostyrko , 2011-09-17 14:33 (+0200):
> You really like to wait for hours before fsck will finish checking for
> your volume?
While it's true that fsck on large filesystems takes ages soft updates
and background fsck makes it a lot less bothersome than it used to be.
--
http://hack.org
free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
> C. TEST3 ( sequential writing ): bonnie++ -d /data -c 10 -s 8088 -n 0 -u 0
>
> 1. UFS + gjournal crashed the box
This _might_ have been caused by a too-small journal provider.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing
16.09.2011 16:35, Terje Elde wrote:
Note: you might be in trouble if you loose your ZIL, thus the doubling up. I
*think* you can SSD a cache without risking dataloss, but don't take my word
for it.
Let me summarize this. ZFS will work even without ZIL or cache. Losing
ZIL will make you LOSE
17.09.2011 00:39, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
I even went as far as disabling the cache flush option of ZFS through
this variable: vfs.zfs.cache_flush_disable: 1, since I already have the
write cache of the controller. I've also set some other variables as per
the Tuning guide but according
On 16. sep. 2011, at 16:18, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
> zpool create data da1
> zfs create data/maildomains
> zfs set sync=disabled data/maildomains
Just for the archives... sync=disabled won't disable disable the zil, it'll
disable waiting for a disk-flush on fsync etc. With a battery ba
Quoting Terje Elde :
On 16. sep. 2011, at 16:18, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
Got a measly 74MB/sec.
You can't ask for advice, get it, do something completely different,
and then complain that it didn't work.
Neither can you ask people to donate their time, if you won't spend yours
On 16. sep. 2011, at 16:18, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
> Got a measly 74MB/sec.
You can't ask for advice, get it, do something completely different, and then
complain that it didn't work.
Neither can you ask people to donate their time, if you won't spend yours.
In other words: if yo
On 16.09.2011 15:57, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
> Quoting Terje Elde :
>
>> On 16. sep. 2011, at 12:31, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
>>> Right now I defined an entire array of 8TB ( all 16 disks ) separated
>>> in two pieces. 50 GB for FreeBSD to boot and the rest available to
>>> conf
Quoting Terje Elde :
On 16. sep. 2011, at 12:31, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
Right now I defined an entire array of 8TB ( all 16 disks )
separated in two pieces. 50 GB for FreeBSD to boot and the rest
available to configure as storage.
ZFS will want to write to it's ZIL (zfs intent l
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:57:45 -0500, wrote:
I know it's usually a big no-no but since I have the battery backed-up
write cache from the raid card, can't I just disable the ZIL entirely ?
No. ZFS doesn't work the way traditional filesystems do.
___
Quoting Terje Elde :
On 16. sep. 2011, at 12:31, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
Right now I defined an entire array of 8TB ( all 16 disks )
separated in two pieces. 50 GB for FreeBSD to boot and the rest
available to configure as storage.
ZFS will want to write to it's ZIL (zfs intent l
On 16. sep. 2011, at 12:31, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
> Right now I defined an entire array of 8TB ( all 16 disks ) separated in two
> pieces. 50 GB for FreeBSD to boot and the rest available to configure as
> storage.
ZFS will want to write to it's ZIL (zfs intent log) before writing to
On 16/09/2011 13:30, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
> Is zfs supposed to be faster if you let it manage the disks directly ?
>
Not necessarily faster (in fact, RAID-Z variants have known limitations
which are not so pronounced in RAID5/6), but definitely more convenient
and in some respects s
On 16/09/2011 12:31, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
> A. TEST1: dd bs=1024 if=/dev/zero of=/data/t1 count=1M
>
> 1. ZFS performed the worst, averaging 67MB/sec
> 2. UFS + gjournal did around 130MB/sec
> 3. UFS did around 190MB/sec
>
> B. TEST2 ( random file creation ): bonnie++ -d /data -c 10
Quoting Johan Hendriks :
free...@top-consulting.net schreef:
I have a new server that I would like to use as a back-end Maildir
storage shared through NFS. The specs are:
FreeBSD 9.0 Beta 2
Xeon x3470 @ 2.93 quad-core CPU
4 GB Ram @ 1333mhz ( upgrading to 12GB tomorrow )
3WARE 9650SE-16LP ca
free...@top-consulting.net schreef:
I have a new server that I would like to use as a back-end Maildir
storage shared through NFS. The specs are:
FreeBSD 9.0 Beta 2
Xeon x3470 @ 2.93 quad-core CPU
4 GB Ram @ 1333mhz ( upgrading to 12GB tomorrow )
3WARE 9650SE-16LP card with write cache enabled
I have a new server that I would like to use as a back-end Maildir
storage shared through NFS. The specs are:
FreeBSD 9.0 Beta 2
Xeon x3470 @ 2.93 quad-core CPU
4 GB Ram @ 1333mhz ( upgrading to 12GB tomorrow )
3WARE 9650SE-16LP card with write cache enabled ( battery is installed )
16 x WD RE3
17 matches
Mail list logo
