Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

Brandon High wrote: > All I know is that the x4540 uses the LSI 1068e chipset, and that the > X4500 used the Marvell 88SX chipset. Since buyers of both of these > systems probably have an expectation that they'll well, work, I assume > that the drivers in Solaris should be relatively stable. > > I

Re: [zfs-discuss] The best motherboard for a home ZFS fileserver

yeah, i have not been pleased with the quality of the HCL. there's plenty of hardware discussed on the forums and if you search the bugs db that has been confirmed and/or fixed to work on various builds of osol and solaris 10. i wound up buying an AMD based machine (i wanted Intel) with 6 onboa

Re: [zfs-discuss] The best motherboard for a home ZFS fileserver

http://app.blist.com/#/blist/mar.ste/Micro-mini-ATX-mainboards-for-Solaris-ZFS-NAS-server 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] The best motherboard for a home ZFS fileserver

In order to try to track the discussion I've created a "wikiable" web list of what was discussed on this thread and what I found on HCL! The problem is still the same: what are the best ones to pick up? ;-) Comments are open (also on feature to list) and everyone can edit the list! This mess

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs, raidz, spare and jbod

Miles Nordin wrote: >> "re" == Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > > re> I will submit that this failure mode is often best > re> solved by door locks, not software. > > First, not just door locks, but: > > * redundant power supplies > > * sleds and Mainta

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs, raidz, spare and jbod

> "bf" == Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: bf> purchase the smallest possible drive right, good point. The failed-channel-simulator could be constructed from the smallest drive/sled module. pgpwTArAHZZB4.pgp Description: PGP signature ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs, raidz, spare and jbod

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Miles Nordin wrote: > I think I'm going to want a ``simulate channel A failure'' button on > this $700 sled. If only the sled weren't so expensive I could Why don't you just purchase the smallest possible drive from Sun and replace it with a cheap graymarket 1.5TB drive fro

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs, raidz, spare and jbod

> "re" == Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: re> I will submit that this failure mode is often best re> solved by door locks, not software. First, not just door locks, but: * redundant power supplies * sleds and Maintain Me, Please lights * high-strung extremely conserva

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot - upgrade from UFS & swap slices

Mark J Musante wrote: > Alan, can you point me at your machine (if it's on SWAN)? I'd like to > see what's going on in there. Many thanks to Mark for his help, I eventually figured out the problem: 6730154 Grub: findroot fails to find ZFS BE Precis: USB disks, LU & ZFS boot don't mix. -- Al

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Miles Nordin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > according to The Blogosphere, source of all reliable information, > there's some issue with LSI, too. The driver is not available in > stable Solaris nor OpenSolaris, or there are two drivers, or > something. the guy is so

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs, raidz, spare and jbod

Miles Nordin wrote: >> "jcm" == James C McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >jcm> I'm not convinced that this is a valid test; yanking a disk > > it is the ONLY valid test. it's just testing more than ZFS. > disagree. It is only a test of the failure mode of ya

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs, raidz, spare and jbod

> "jcm" == James C McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: jcm> I'm not convinced that this is a valid test; yanking a disk it is the ONLY valid test. it's just testing more than ZFS. pgpHTHYtENLmG.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

> "bh" == Brandon High <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: bh> a system built around the Marvell or LSI chipsets according to The Blogosphere, source of all reliable information, there's some issue with LSI, too. The driver is not available in stable Solaris nor OpenSolaris, or there are two dri

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive

> "jv" == Justin Vassallo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: jv> Any clues where I can get the upgrade from? type 'zpool upgrade -v' and follow the url there, which for me on SXCE b71 is: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/version/8/ so you will need sol10 u6, which is hard to trans

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Brandon High wrote: > >> Mirroring will provide a boost on reads, since the system to read from >> both sides of the mirror. It will not provide an increase on writes, >> since the system needs to wait for both halves of the mirror to >> finish. It c

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Brandon High wrote: >> I am not sure if ZFS really has to wait for both sides of a mirror to >> finish, but even if it does, if there are enough VDEVs then ZFS can still >> proceed with writing. > > It would have to wait on an fsync() call, since that won't return > until both

[zfs-discuss] mirror migration

It is quite common for RAID arrays and systems like Thumper to be sold with a complete set of drives. However, many sites likely start off with a relatively small amount of data and expect to grow into the space. The full storage cost is paid when the system is purchased. While there is the o

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is anything really slower than a RAID5? RAID6 might be. RAID3 can be, too. Hey, you asked. > I am not sure if ZFS really has to wait for both sides of a mirror to > finish, but even if it does, if there are enough VDEV

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Wreede, Matt - PC/Network Technician <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had hideous luck with software-RAID and hot swapping, and from what I've > heard, Solaris is sort of iffy on support for hot swapping, so I'd like to > stick with the Areca. In theory, a syst

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Brandon High wrote: > > Mirroring will provide a boost on reads, since the system to read from > both sides of the mirror. It will not provide an increase on writes, > since the system needs to wait for both halves of the mirror to > finish. It could be slightly slower than a s

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Matt Wreede wrote: > Now, here is the important question: Does mirroring provide a > performance boost, or is it simply a way to provide redundancy? That Mirroring provides a performance boost for reads since a read can be done from either side of the mirror. Theoretically

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

> > But, is there a performance boost with mirroring the drives? That is what > > I'm unsure of. > > Mirroring will provide a boost on reads, since the system to read from > both sides of the mirror. It will not provide an increase on writes, > since the system needs to wait for both halves of the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Wreede, Matt - PC/Network Technician <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think read speeds are going to be a huge issue, and depending on the > boost it'll bring, it may well be worth it for me to simply add the RAID-5 > arrays as a single drive, and not try to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Matt Wreede <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But, is there a performance boost with mirroring the drives? That is what I'm > unsure of. Mirroring will provide a boost on reads, since the system to read from both sides of the mirror. It will not provide an increase on

[zfs-discuss] Ideal Setup: RAID-5, Areca, etc!

Howdy. My plan: I'm planning an ESX-iSCSI target/NFS serving box. I'm planning on using an Areca RAID card, as I've heard mixed things about hot-swapping with Solaris/ZFS, and I'd like the stability of a hardware RAID. My question is this: I'll be using 8 750GB SATA drives, and I''m trying to

Re: [zfs-discuss] [zfs-code] Peak every 4-5 second

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:17 AM, David Collier-Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And do you really have 4-sided raid 1 mirrors, not 4-wide raid-0 stripes??? Or perhaps 4 RAID1 mirrors concatenated? -B -- Brandon High [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The good is the enemy of the best." - Nietzsche __

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive

[OT, I know.] On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 07:14:09PM +0200, Justin Vassallo wrote: > Meanwhile, I had to permit root login (obviously disabled passwd auth; > PasswordAuthentication no; PAMAuthenticationViaKBDInt no). Why obviously? I think instead you may just want to: PermitRootLogin without-pass

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive

Justin Vassallo wrote: > For the record, I am told that I will need to wait for S10 u6 for zfs > delegation; can't upgrade before that. > > Meanwhile, I had to permit root login (obviously disabled passwd auth; > PasswordAuthentication no; PAMAuthenticationViaKBDInt no). I'd suggest instead using

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive

For the record, I am told that I will need to wait for S10 u6 for zfs delegation; can't upgrade before that. Meanwhile, I had to permit root login (obviously disabled passwd auth; PasswordAuthentication no; PAMAuthenticationViaKBDInt no). Also, the -R option does not work on this zfs version, so

Re: [zfs-discuss] l2arc and reboot

Darren J Moffat wrote: > Robert Milkowski wrote: > >> Hello zfs-discuss, >> >> What happens after a reboot to l2arc? I mean after pool is imported >> will zfs try to still check for data in a l2arc or will it assume it >> is empty and will start to warm it up? >> > > Empty and warm it

Re: [zfs-discuss] x4500 performance tuning.

Moore, Joe wrote: > Richard Elling wrote: > >> There are known issues with the Marvell drivers in X4500s. You will >> want to pay attention to the release notes, SRDBs, InfoDocs, >> and SunAlerts >> for the platform. >> http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub/validateUser.do?target=Sy >> stems/Su

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive

Justin Vassallo wrote: > Indeed I want a permanent solution so I'll upgrade my zpool as suggested, > since that seems to be the only option > > I searched sunsolve for the relevant patches /package downloads and googled > zfs upgrade but only got references to documentation. Any clues where I can

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive

Indeed I want a permanent solution so I'll upgrade my zpool as suggested, since that seems to be the only option I searched sunsolve for the relevant patches /package downloads and googled zfs upgrade but only got references to documentation. Any clues where I can get the upgrade from? I'm runnin

Re: [zfs-discuss] [zfs-code] Peak every 4-5 second

And do you really have 4-sided raid 1 mirrors, not 4-wide raid-0 stripes??? --dave Robert Milkowski wrote: > Hello Tharindu, > > > Thursday, July 24, 2008, 6:02:31 AM, you wrote: > > >> > > > > We do not use raidz*. Virtually, no raid or stripe through OS. > > > We have 4 disk RAID

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive

Justin Vassallo wrote: > Thanks Michale, > > that got me through to second round :) I eventually added /sbin to my > /etc/profile to avoid the mistake in future. > > So the issue is now with the USER rights on the zfs. How can I grant USER > rights on this zfs? Is upgrading to a zfs which support

Re: [zfs-discuss] [zfs-code] Peak every 4-5 second

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Robert Milkowski wrote: > Both on 2540 and 6540 if you do not disable it your performance will > be very bad especially for synchronous IOs as ZIL will force your > array to flush its cache every time. If you are not using ZFS on any > other storage than 2540 on your server

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive

Justin Vassallo wrote: > Thanks Michale, > > that got me through to second round :) I eventually added /sbin to my > /etc/profile to avoid the mistake in future. > > So the issue is now with the USER rights on the zfs. How can I grant USER > rights on this zfs? Is upgrading to a zfs which support

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive

Thanks Michale, that got me through to second round :) I eventually added /sbin to my /etc/profile to avoid the mistake in future. So the issue is now with the USER rights on the zfs. How can I grant USER rights on this zfs? Is upgrading to a zfs which supports 'zfs allow' my only option? ---jus

Re: [zfs-discuss] l2arc and reboot

Robert Milkowski wrote: > Hello zfs-discuss, > > What happens after a reboot to l2arc? I mean after pool is imported > will zfs try to still check for data in a l2arc or will it assume it > is empty and will start to warm it up? Empty and warm it up. > Since data are checksummed on l2arc

[zfs-discuss] l2arc and reboot

Hello zfs-discuss, What happens after a reboot to l2arc? I mean after pool is imported will zfs try to still check for data in a l2arc or will it assume it is empty and will start to warm it up? Since data are checksummed on l2arc one could argue you it should be possible to still check

Re: [zfs-discuss] [zfs-code] Peak every 4-5 second

Hello Tharindu, Thursday, July 24, 2008, 6:02:31 AM, you wrote: > We do not use raidz*. Virtually, no raid or stripe through OS. We have 4 disk RAID1 volumes.  RAID1 was created from CAM on 2540. 2540 does not have RAID 1+0 or 0+1. Of course it does 1+0. Just add more drives to

Re: [zfs-discuss] x4500 performance tuning.

Richard Elling wrote: > There are known issues with the Marvell drivers in X4500s. You will > want to pay attention to the release notes, SRDBs, InfoDocs, > and SunAlerts > for the platform. > http://sunsolve.sun.com/handbook_pub/validateUser.do?target=Sy > stems/SunFireX4500/SunFireX4500 > > Yo

Re: [zfs-discuss] [zfs-code] Peak every 4-5 second

Hello Tharindu, Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 10:03:15 AM, you wrote: > 10,000 x 700 = 7MB per second .. We have this rate for whole day 10,000 orders per second is minimum requirments of modern day stock exchanges ... Cache still help us for ~1 hours, but after that who will hel

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive

Justin Vassallo wrote: > I created snapshot for my whole zpool (zfs version 3): > > > > zfs snapshot -r [EMAIL PROTECTED] +%F_%T` > > > > then trid to send it to the remote host: > > zfs send [EMAIL PROTECTED]:31:03 | ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -i identitykey ‘zfs

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot - upgrade from UFS & swap slices

Mark J Musante wrote: > Alan, can you point me at your machine (if it's on SWAN)? I'd like to > see what's going on in there. Might be easiest to use sun shared shell to get you access... -- Alan Burlison -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot - upgrade from UFS & swap slices

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008, Alan Burlison wrote: > Enda O'Connor wrote: > >> probably >> 6722767 lucreate did not add new BE to menu.lst ( or grub ) > > Yeah, I found that bug, added A CR & bumped the priority. > Unfortunatrly there's no analysis or workaround in the bug, so I've no > idea what the rea

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs, raidz, spare and jbod

>> I'm running the version that was supplied on the CD, this is >> 1.20.00.15 from 2007-04-04. The firmware is V1.45 from 2008-3-27. > > Check the version at the Areca website. They may have a more recent driver > there. The dates are later for the 1.20.00.15 and there is a -71010 > extension. >

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs, raidz, spare and jbod

On Jul 25, 2008, at 7:27 AM, Claus Guttesen wrote: > I'm running the version that was supplied on the CD, this is > 1.20.00.15 from 2007-04-04. The firmware is V1.45 from 2008-3-27. Check the version at the Areca website. They may have a more recent driver there. The dates are later for th

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot - upgrade from UFS & swap slices

Mark J Musante wrote: > As a workaround, you can pre-create the swap & dump zvols. E.g.: > > zfs create -V 512m {pool}/swap > zfs create -V 2g {pool}/dump > > If LU sees that the zvols already exist, it assumes they are correctly > sized. Nice tip, thanks :-) -- Alan Burlison -- ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot - upgrade from UFS & swap slices

Enda O'Connor wrote: > probably > 6722767 lucreate did not add new BE to menu.lst ( or grub ) Yeah, I found that bug, added A CR & bumped the priority. Unfortunatrly there's no analysis or workaround in the bug, so I've no idea what the real problem is. -- Alan Burlison -- __

[zfs-discuss] send/receive

I created snapshot for my whole zpool (zfs version 3): zfs snapshot -r [EMAIL PROTECTED] +%F_%T` then trid to send it to the remote host: zfs send [EMAIL PROTECTED]:31:03 | ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED] -i identitykey 'zfs receive tank/tankbackup' but got the error "zfs: command not found" sin

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs, raidz, spare and jbod

>> I installed solaris express developer edition (b79) on a supermicro >> quad-core harpertown E5405 with 8 GB ram and two internal sata-drives. >> I installed solaris onto one of the internal drives. I added an areca >> arc-1680 sas-controller and configured it in jbod-mode. I attached an >> exter

Re: [zfs-discuss] L2ARC is Solaris 10?

Hello Brendan, Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 11:20:47 PM, you wrote: BGSM> G'Day Jeff, BGSM> On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:45:13PM -0400, Jeff Taylor wrote: >> When will L2ARC be available in Solaris 10? BGSM> There are no current plans to back port; if we were to, I think it would be BGSM> ideal (or

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot - upgrade from UFS & swap slices

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, Alan Burlison wrote: >> What if you turned slice 1 into a pool (a new one), migrated your BE >> into it, then grow that pool to soak up the space in the slices that >> follow it? You might still need to save some stuff elsewhere while >> you're doing the transition. > > Doe

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot - upgrade from UFS & swap slices

Alan Burlison wrote: > Lori Alt wrote: > >> It's hard to know what the "right" thing to do is from within >> the installation software. Does the user want to preserve >> as much of their current environment as possible? Or does >> the user want to move toward the new "standard" configuration >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot - upgrade from UFS & swap slices

Lori Alt wrote: > It's hard to know what the "right" thing to do is from within > the installation software. Does the user want to preserve > as much of their current environment as possible? Or does > the user want to move toward the new "standard" configuration > (which is pretty much zfs-ever

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs, raidz, spare and jbod

Hi Claus, Claus Guttesen wrote: > Hi. > > I installed solaris express developer edition (b79) on a supermicro > quad-core harpertown E5405 with 8 GB ram and two internal sata-drives. > I installed solaris onto one of the internal drives. I added an areca > arc-1680 sas-controller and configured i

[zfs-discuss] zfs, raidz, spare and jbod

Hi. I installed solaris express developer edition (b79) on a supermicro quad-core harpertown E5405 with 8 GB ram and two internal sata-drives. I installed solaris onto one of the internal drives. I added an areca arc-1680 sas-controller and configured it in jbod-mode. I attached an external sas-ca

Re: [zfs-discuss] Cannot attach mirror to SPARC zfs root pool

Boyd Adamson wrote: > "Enda O'Connor ( Sun Micro Systems Ireland)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes: > [..] >> meant to add that on x86 the following should do the trick ( again I'm open >> to correction ) >> >> installgrub /boot/grub/stage1 /zfsroot/boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c1t0d0s0 >> >> haven't t

Re: [zfs-discuss] The best motherboard for a home ZFS fileserver

Don't take my opinion. I am a newbie to everything solaris. >From what it looks like in the HCL, some of the VIA stuff is supported. Like I >said I tried some nexenta CD... They don't make 64-bit, first off, and I am not sure if any of their mini-itx boards support more than 2 gig ram. ZFS love

Re: [zfs-discuss] The best motherboard for a home ZFS fileserver

Since it seems is not working I'm not going for this case! And is a peaty for such a "perfect" case! This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-dis

Re: [zfs-discuss] The best motherboard for a home ZFS fileserver

i have that chassis too. did solaris install for you? what version/build? i think i tried a nexenta build and it crapped out on install. i also only have 2 gigs of ram in it and a CF card to boot off of... 4 drives is too small for what i want, 5 drives would be my minimum. i was hoping this wo

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool version 11

- Original Message - From: dick hoogendijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:28 am Subject: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool version 11 To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > I updated to B94 yesterday and when asked to upgrade the zpool I just > did that ;-) > > This system is curren

[zfs-discuss] ZFS pool version 11

I updated to B94 yesterday and when asked to upgrade the zpool I just did that ;-) This system is currently running ZFS pool version 11 A little time afterwards I suddenly thought this might have been a stupid thing to do. I can't move back to B93 now. So I do hope B94 will be OK. :) Another thi