Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs/nfs issue editing existing files

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Robert Thurlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brandon High wrote: >> AFAIK, you're doing the best that you can while playing in the >> constraints of ZFS. If you want to use nfs v3 with your clients, >> you'll need to use UFS as the back end. > > Just a clarification:

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Root Install with Nevada build 90

andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've got Nevada build 90 on 6 CDs and I'm trying to install it to a > ZFS root - functionality that was added to the text-mode installer in > build 90. Unfortunately I'm not offered the choice of using the > text-mode installer! How can I install build 90 on SP

Re: [zfs-discuss] Cannot delete errored file

Ben Middleton drn.org> writes: > > Today's update: > - I ran a memtest a few times - no errors. Just making sure you know about it: memtest should run for a _least_ a couple hours, and should complete at least 1 pass. Also, after the scrub completes, any permanent errors you see (so far you on

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs/nfs issue editing existing files

Brandon High wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Andy Lubel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Tried this today and although things appear to function correctly, the >> performance seems to be steadily degrading. Am I getting burnt by >> double-caching? If so, what is the best way to workaround f

Re: [zfs-discuss] Per-user home filesystems and OS-X Leopard anomaly

On May 21, 2008, at 13:14, Bill McGonigle wrote: > They'll have ZFS on OSX Server eventually. Replying to myself again... :P It looks like 'eventually' is next year: http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/snowleopard/ "ZFS For business-critical server deployments, Snow Leopard Server a

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS space map causing slow performance

Scott, This looks more like " bug#*6596237 Stop looking and start ganging ". * What version of Solaris are the production servers running (S10 or Opensolaris) ? Thanks and regards, Sanjeev. Scott wrote: > Hello, > > I have several ~12TB storage server

Re: [zfs-discuss] Per-user home filesystems and OS-X Leopard anomaly

On Jun 5, 2008, at 17:03, Bill McGonigle wrote: > Better late then never... this is now bug #5989285 (not that this > will help most people; they're not open). Apple say: After further investigation it has been determined that this is a known issue, which is currently being investigated by

[zfs-discuss] zfs promote and ENOSPC

I needed to free up some space to be able to create and populate a new upgrade. I was caught off guard by the amount of free space required by "zfs promote". bash-3.2# uname -a SunOS indy2 5.11 snv_86 i86pc i386 i86pc bash-3.2# zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUN

[zfs-discuss] ZFS space map causing slow performance

Hello, I have several ~12TB storage servers using Solaris with ZFS. Two of them have recently developed performance issues where the majority of time in an spa_sync() will be spent in the space_map_*() functions. During this time, "zpool iostat" will show 0 writes to disk, while it does hundr

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs/nfs issue editing existing files

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Andy Lubel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tried this today and although things appear to function correctly, the > performance seems to be steadily degrading. Am I getting burnt by > double-caching? If so, what is the best way to workaround for my sad > situation? I

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Nathan Kroenert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To add to that, it would seem that UFS is more likely to 'give pages > back' before things to to crap and system performance tanks versus ZFS. There were some write throttling changes in recent builds that were meant to a

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs/nfs issue editing existing files

On Jun 9, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Andy Lubel wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Andy Lubel wrote: > >> That was it! >> >> hpux-is-old.com -> nearline.host NFS C GETATTR3 FH=F6B3 >> nearline.host -> hpux-is-old.com NFS R GETATTR3 OK >> hpux-is-old.com -> nearline.host NFS C SETATTR3 FH=F6B3 >> nea

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

To add to that, it would seem that UFS is more likely to 'give pages back' before things to to crap and system performance tanks versus ZFS. It might just be me, and the 'feel' of it, but it still feels to me that the system needs to be under more memory pressure before ZFS gives pages back. Th

Re: [zfs-discuss] memory hog

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Dick Hoogendijk wrote: > ZFS is called crap by FreeBSD people, because of the great memory hog > and high CPU usage. I know it zfs uses more memory the a UFS system, > but can somebody give some hints about how much the difference is? I don't see any high CPU usage here. The

[zfs-discuss] memory hog

ZFS is called crap by FreeBSD people, because of the great memory hog and high CPU usage. I know it zfs uses more memory the a UFS system, but can somebody give some hints about how much the difference is? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxde 01/08 ++ __

Re: [zfs-discuss] SATA controller suggestion

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Jonathan Hogg wrote: >> Are you sure gdd doesn't create a sparse file? > > One would presumably expect it to be instantaneous if it was creating > a sparse file. It's not a compressed filesystem though is it? /dev/ > zero tends to be fairly compressible ;-) /dev/zero does not

Re: [zfs-discuss] creating ZFS mirror over iSCSI between to DELL MD3000i arrays

On 09 June, 2008 - Thomas Rojsel sent me these 0,5K bytes: > Hi, > > I've looked at ZFS for a while now and i'm wondering if it's possible > on a server create a ZFS mirror between two different iSCSI targets > (two MD3000i located in two different server rooms). > > Or is it any setup that yo

Re: [zfs-discuss] SATA controller suggestion

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008, Tom Buskey wrote: > > time gdd if=/dev/zero bs=1048576 count=10240 of=/data/video/x > > real 0m13.503s > user 0m0.016s > sys 0m8.981s These results are not quite valid. /dev/zero only produces null bytes which allows zfs to store the data as sparse files (i.e. write less

[zfs-discuss] ZFS Root Install with Nevada build 90

I've got Nevada build 90 on 6 CDs and I'm trying to install it to a ZFS root - functionality that was added to the text-mode installer in build 90. Unfortunately I'm not offered the choice of using the text-mode installer! How can I install build 90 on SPARC to a ZFS root? I've done this success

[zfs-discuss] creating ZFS mirror over iSCSI between to DELL MD3000i arrays

Hi, I've looked at ZFS for a while now and i'm wondering if it's possible on a server create a ZFS mirror between two different iSCSI targets (two MD3000i located in two different server rooms). Or is it any setup that you guys recommend for maximal data protection. Thanks, /Thom This

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs/nfs issue editing existing files

On Jun 6, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Andy Lubel wrote: > That was it! > > hpux-is-old.com -> nearline.host NFS C GETATTR3 FH=F6B3 > nearline.host -> hpux-is-old.com NFS R GETATTR3 OK > hpux-is-old.com -> nearline.host NFS C SETATTR3 FH=F6B3 > nearline.host -> hpux-is-old.com NFS R SETATTR3 Update synch m

Re: [zfs-discuss] Cannot delete errored file

Hi, Today's update: - I ran a memtest a few times - no errors. - I reseated, re-routed ad switched all connectors/cables - I'm currently running a scrub, but it's showing vast numbers of cksum errors now across all devices: $ zpool status -v pool: rpool state: DEGRADED status: One or more de

Re: [zfs-discuss] SATA controller suggestion

> > time gdd if=/dev/zero bs=1048576 count=10240 > of=/data/video/x > > real 0m13.503s > user 0m0.016s > sys 0m8.981s As someone pointed out, this is a compressed file system :-) I'll have to get a copy of Bonnie++ or some such to get more accurate numbers This message posted from openso

Re: [zfs-discuss] SATA controller suggestion

On 9 Jun 2008, at 14:59, Thomas Maier-Komor wrote: >> time gdd if=/dev/zero bs=1048576 count=10240 of=/data/video/x >> >> real 0m13.503s >> user 0m0.016s >> sys 0m8.981s >> >> > > Are you sure gdd doesn't create a sparse file? One would presumably expect it to be instantaneous if it was creating

Re: [zfs-discuss] [caiman-discuss] disk names?

I agree 100%. If we went by "this is how we always did it," then we would not have ZFS :) Charles (not to mention X64, CMT, or iPhones!;) On 6/4/08 10:55 AM, "Bob Friesenhahn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Dave Miner wrote: >> >> Putting into the zpool command would feel od

Re: [zfs-discuss] SATA controller suggestion

Tom Buskey schrieb: >> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 16:23, Tom Buskey >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I have an AMD 939 MB w/ Nvidea on the motherboard >> and 4 500GB SATA II drives in a RAIDZ. >> ... >>> I get 550 MB/s >> I doubt this number a lot. That's almost 200 >> (550/N-1 = 183) MB/s per >> dis

Re: [zfs-discuss] SATA controller suggestion

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 7:16 AM, Tom Buskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 16:23, Tom Buskey > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have an AMD 939 MB w/ Nvidea on the motherboard > > and 4 500GB SATA II drives in a RAIDZ. > > ... > > > I get 550 MB/s > > I doubt this number

Re: [zfs-discuss] SATA controller suggestion

> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 16:23, Tom Buskey > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have an AMD 939 MB w/ Nvidea on the motherboard > and 4 500GB SATA II drives in a RAIDZ. > ... > > I get 550 MB/s > I doubt this number a lot. That's almost 200 > (550/N-1 = 183) MB/s per > disk, and drives I've seen are

Re: [zfs-discuss] Filesystem for each home dir - 10,000 users?

Richard Elling wrote: > For ZFS, there are some features which conflict with the > notion of user quotas: compression, copies, and snapshots come > immediately to mind. UFS (and perhaps VxFS?) do not have > these features, so accounting space to users is much simpler. > Indeed, if was was easy to