drives >2TB on mpt device

2011-04-04 Thread Gerrit Kühn
Hi all, I have a freshly installed 8.2-REL with a SuperMicro AOC-USASLP-L8i controller (LSI/MPT 1068E chipset). I have several of these controllers working nicely in other systems. However, this time I tried drives >2TB for the first time (Hitachi Deskstar 3TB). It appears that the mpt device repo

Re: drives >2TB on mpt device

2011-04-04 Thread Bruce Cran
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:07:01 +0200 Gerrit Kühn wrote: > Are there any hints how to access the full drive? Am I seeing a > limitation of the controller/firmware or rather of the driver (mpt)? It looks like a known issue: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/147572 -- Bruce Cran ___

Re: drives >2TB on mpt device

2011-04-04 Thread Gerrit Kühn
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:36:25 +0100 Bruce Cran wrote about Re: drives >2TB on mpt device: Hi Bruce, BC> It looks like a known issue: BC> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/147572 Hm, I don't know if this is exactly what I'm seeing here (although the cause may be the same): I do not us

Re: drives >2TB on mpt device

2011-04-04 Thread Artem Belevich
2011/4/4 Gerrit Kühn : > On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:36:25 +0100 Bruce Cran wrote > about Re: drives >2TB on mpt device: > > Hi Bruce, > > BC> It looks like a known issue: > BC> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=bin/147572 > > Hm, I don't know if this is exactly what I'm seeing here (although t

8.2: ISCSI: ISTGT a bit slow, I think

2011-04-04 Thread Denny Schierz
hi, I testing the maximum throughput from ISCSI, but I've reached only ~50MB/s (dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da13 bs=1M count=2048) with crossover 1Gb/s cabel and raw disk. Both machines are FreeBSD 8.2-stable with istgt and the Onboard ISCSI initiator With ZFS as target we loose round about 8-10MB/s

Re: 8.2: ISCSI: ISTGT a bit slow, I think

2011-04-04 Thread Claus Guttesen
> I testing the maximum throughput from ISCSI, but I've reached only > ~50MB/s (dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da13 bs=1M count=2048) with crossover > 1Gb/s cabel and raw disk. Both machines are FreeBSD 8.2-stable with > istgt and the Onboard ISCSI initiator I've reached almost 118 MB/s but I don't have

Re: Any success stories for HAST + ZFS?

2011-04-04 Thread Freddie Cash
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:44 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 01:36:32PM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote: >> [Not sure which list is most appropriate since it's using HAST + ZFS >> on -RELEASE, -STABLE, and -CURRENT.  Feel free to trim the CC: on >> replies.] >> >> I'm having a he

Re: 8.2: ISCSI: ISTGT a bit slow, I think

2011-04-04 Thread Denny Schierz
hi, Am 04.04.2011 um 18:04 schrieb Claus Guttesen: > > I've reached almost 118 MB/s but I don't have access to the > configuration atm. This was from a windows 7 client. From vmware I've > gotten 107 MB/s during a debian 6 server installation. I'll post the > settings when I get back to work. t

Re: Kernel memory leak in 8.2-PRERELEASE?

2011-04-04 Thread Boris Kochergin
On 04/02/11 11:41, Boris Kochergin wrote: On 04/02/11 11:33, Kostik Belousov wrote: On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Boris Kochergin wrote: Ahoy. This morning, I awoke to the following on one of my servers: pid 59630 (httpd), uid 80, was killed: out of swap space pid 59341 (find), uid

Re: Kernel memory leak in 8.2-PRERELEASE?

2011-04-04 Thread Artem Belevich
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Boris Kochergin wrote: > The problem persists, I'm afraid, and seems to have crept up a lot more > quickly than before: > > # uname -a > FreeBSD exodus.poly.edu 8.2-STABLE FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #3: Sat Apr  2 > 11:48:43 EDT 2011     sp...@exodus.poly.edu:/usr/obj/usr/s

Re: Kernel memory leak in 8.2-PRERELEASE?

2011-04-04 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 04:56:31PM -0400, Boris Kochergin wrote: > On 04/02/11 11:41, Boris Kochergin wrote: > >On 04/02/11 11:33, Kostik Belousov wrote: > >>On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Boris Kochergin wrote: > >>>Ahoy. This morning, I awoke to the following on one of my servers: > >>

Re: Kernel memory leak in 8.2-PRERELEASE?

2011-04-04 Thread Boris Kochergin
On 04/04/11 18:43, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 04:56:31PM -0400, Boris Kochergin wrote: On 04/02/11 11:41, Boris Kochergin wrote: On 04/02/11 11:33, Kostik Belousov wrote: On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 10:17:27AM -0400, Boris Kochergin wrote: Ahoy. This morning, I awoke to the fo

Re: Kernel memory leak in 8.2-PRERELEASE?

2011-04-04 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:56:10PM -0400, Boris Kochergin wrote: > On 04/04/11 18:43, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 04:56:31PM -0400, Boris Kochergin wrote: > >>On 04/02/11 11:41, Boris Kochergin wrote: > >>>On 04/02/11 11:33, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at

Re: Kernel memory leak in 8.2-PRERELEASE?

2011-04-04 Thread Boris Kochergin
On 04/04/11 21:01, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 08:56:10PM -0400, Boris Kochergin wrote: On 04/04/11 18:43, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 04:56:31PM -0400, Boris Kochergin wrote: On 04/02/11 11:41, Boris Kochergin wrote: On 04/02/11 11:33, Kostik Belousov wr

Re: Kernel memory leak in 8.2-PRERELEASE?

2011-04-04 Thread Charles Sprickman
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: Finally, please note that most of the stuff you'll read online for ZFS tuning on FreeBSD is outdated with 8.2. E.g. you should not need to set vm.kmem_size and you should never need to adjust vm.kmem_size_max. Slight tangent, does this apply to i386

Re: Kernel memory leak in 8.2-PRERELEASE?

2011-04-04 Thread Jeremy Chadwick
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:48:17PM -0400, Charles Sprickman wrote: > On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > >Finally, please note that most of the stuff you'll read online for ZFS > >tuning on FreeBSD is outdated with 8.2. E.g. you should not need to set > >vm.kmem_size and you should nev

Re: Kernel memory leak in 8.2-PRERELEASE?

2011-04-04 Thread Boris Kochergin
So, vfs.zfs.arc_max="2048M" in /boot/loader.conf was indeed apparently all that was necessary to bring the situation under control. I remember it being a lot more nightmarish, so it's nice to see that it's improved. Thanks for everyone's advice. Per an earlier request, here is the output of "zf