perhaps these are good picks:
5 x (7+2) 1 hot spare 35 data disks <- best safety
5 x (8+1) 1 hot spare 40 data disks <- best space
9 x (4+1) 1 hot spare 36 data disks <- best speed
1 x (45+1) 0 hot spare 45 data disks <- max space
23x (1+1) 0 hot spare 23 data disks <- max speed
it
* Karen Chau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-21 19:09]:
> Hi,
> Our server is hung at boot up. I tried boot -s, hangs at the same place.
>
> *** SUMMARY of behavior ***
>
> Using boot, it hangs after displaying line:
> Hostname: itsm-mpk-2
>
> So tried using "boot -v" to show more detail. It now
>
Hi,
Our server is hung at boot up. I tried boot -s, hangs at the same place.
*** SUMMARY of behavior ***
Using boot, it hangs after displaying line:
Hostname: itsm-mpk-2
So tried using "boot -v" to show more detail. It now
hangs after 4 more lines are displayed:
- BEGIN HERE -
px_pci1
> This gives a nice bias towards one of the following
> configurations:
>
> - 5x(7+2), 1 hot spare, 17.5TB [corrected]
> - 4x(9+2), 2 hot spares, 18.0TB
> - 6x(5+2), 4 hot spares, 15.0TB
In addition to Eric's suggestions, I would be interested in these configs for
46 disks:
5
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Shannon Roddy wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have looked on the HCL list for Sol 10 x86 without much luck. I am
> looking for a 8 or 16 port SATA card for a JBOD Sol 10 x86 ZFS
> installation. Anyone know of one that is well supported in Sol 10? I
> am starting to do some testing w
>Hi All,
>
>I have looked on the HCL list for Sol 10 x86 without much luck. I am
>looking for a 8 or 16 port SATA card for a JBOD Sol 10 x86 ZFS
>installation. Anyone know of one that is well supported in Sol 10? I
>am starting to do some testing with an LSI Logic 320-XLP SATA RAID card,
>but s
Hi All,
I have looked on the HCL list for Sol 10 x86 without much luck. I am
looking for a 8 or 16 port SATA card for a JBOD Sol 10 x86 ZFS
installation. Anyone know of one that is well supported in Sol 10? I
am starting to do some testing with an LSI Logic 320-XLP SATA RAID card,
but so far as
Ah ha. Interesting procedure and bug report. This is starting to make sense.
Another interesting bug report:
6416757 zfs could still use less memory
This one is more or less the same thing I have noticed.
I guess I'll add some swap for the short term. :-(
--joe
Roch wrote:
I just ran:
I just ran:
[EMAIL PROTECTED](129): mkfile 5000M f3
Could not set length of f3: No space left on device
Which fails in anon_resvmem:
dtrace -n fbt::anon_resvmem:return/arg1==0/[EMAIL PROTECTED](20)]=count()}
tmpfs`tmp_resv+0x50
tmpfs`wrtmp+0x28c
>Are you trying to convince me that having applications/application data
>occasionally swapped out to disk is actually faster than keeping it all
>in memory?
Yes. Having more memory available generally causes the
system to be a faster.
>I have another box, which I LU'd to U1 a while ago. Its
I need to read through this more thoroughly to get my head around it, but
on my first pass, what jumps out at me is that something significant
_changed_ in terms of "application" behavior with the introduction of ZFS.
I'm saying that that is a bad thing, or a good thing, but it is an
important
Bill Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 12:44:16AM +0800, Darren Reed wrote:
> > Bart Smaalders wrote:
> >
> > >I just swap on a zvol w/ my ZFS root machine.
> >
> >
> > I haven't been watching...what's the current status of using
> > ZFS for swap/dump?
> >
> > Is a/th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've kind of side tracked, but Yes, I do understand the limitations of
running without swap. However, in the interest of performance, I, and in
fact my whole organization which runs about 300 servers, disable swap.
We've never had an out of memory problem in the past
>We've kind of side tracked, but Yes, I do understand the limitations of
>running without swap. However, in the interest of performance, I, and in
>fact my whole organization which runs about 300 servers, disable swap.
>We've never had an out of memory problem in the past because of kernel
>m
Bart Smaalders wrote:
Joseph Mocker wrote:
Bart Smaalders wrote:
How much swap space is configured on this machine?
Zero. Is there any reason I would want to configure any swap space?
--joe
Well, if you want to allocate 500 MB in /tmp, and your machine
has no swap, you need 500M of phys
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes.
In this particular case:
total: 213728k bytes allocated + 8896k reserved = 222624k used, 11416864k
available
you have 9MB of "reserved" memory which means it is memory which is not
doing anything.
Then there is a lot of "dirty" data which is never used again and
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 12:44:16AM +0800, Darren Reed wrote:
> Bart Smaalders wrote:
>
> >I just swap on a zvol w/ my ZFS root machine.
>
>
> I haven't been watching...what's the current status of using
> ZFS for swap/dump?
>
> Is a/the swap solution to use mkswap and then specify that file
> i
Bart Smaalders wrote:
...
I just swap on a zvol w/ my ZFS root machine.
I haven't been watching...what's the current status of using
ZFS for swap/dump?
Is a/the swap solution to use mkswap and then specify that file
in vfstab?
Darren
___
zfs-dis
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 07:22:17AM -0600, Gregory Shaw wrote:
> After reading the ditto blocks blog (good article, btw), an idea
> occurred to me:
>
> Since we use ditto blocks to preserve critical filesystem data, would
> it be practical to add a filesystem property that would cause all
> f
Joseph Mocker wrote:
Bart Smaalders wrote:
How much swap space is configured on this machine?
Zero. Is there any reason I would want to configure any swap space?
--joe
Well, if you want to allocate 500 MB in /tmp, and your machine
has no swap, you need 500M of physical memory or the writ
as promissed: not working...
only the directories are getting created/backuped...
zici:/export/projects/.zfs/snapshot: No full backups of this save set were
found in the media database; performing a full backup
* zici:/export/projects/.zfs/snapshot save: Unable to read ACL * information
for
Hello Gregory,
Friday, July 21, 2006, 3:22:17 PM, you wrote:
>
After reading the ditto blocks blog (good article, btw), an idea occurred to me:
Since we use ditto blocks to preserve critical filesystem data, would it be practical to add a filesystem property that would cause all files i
After reading the ditto blocks blog (good article, btw), an idea occurred to me:Since we use ditto blocks to preserve critical filesystem data, would it be practical to add a filesystem property that would cause all files in a filesystem to be stored as mirrored blocks?That would allow a dual-copy
Gregory,
> I've been backing up ZFS with NetBackup 5.1 without issue. I won't
> say it does everything, but I am able to backup and restore
> individual files.
I know: we're actually using 4.5 at the moment ;-) My question was
specificialy about ACL support. I think the ZFS Admin Guide me
I've been backing up ZFS with NetBackup 5.1 without issue. I won't say it does everything, but I am able to backup and restore individual files.On Jul 21, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:Anne Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The EMC/Legato NetWorker (a.k.a. Sun StorEdge EBS) support for ZFS N
Anne Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The EMC/Legato NetWorker (a.k.a. Sun StorEdge EBS) support for ZFS
> NFSv4/ACLs will be in NetWorker 7.3.2 release currently targeting for
> September release.
Any word on equivalent support in VERITAS/Symantec NetBackup?
Rainer
--
>Bart Smaalders wrote:
>
>>
>> How much swap space is configured on this machine?
>
>Zero. Is there any reason I would want to configure any swap space?
Yes.
In this particular case:
total: 213728k bytes allocated + 8896k reserved = 222624k used, 11416864k
available
you have 9MB of "reserved
Hello Bill,
Friday, July 21, 2006, 7:31:25 AM, you wrote:
BM> On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 03:45:54PM -0700, Jeff Bonwick wrote:
>> > However, we do have the advantage of always knowing when something
>> > is corrupted, and knowing what that particular block should have been.
>>
>> We also have ditt
28 matches
Mail list logo
