On 20 maj 2010, at 00.20, Don wrote:
> "You can lose all writes from the last committed transaction (i.e., the
> one before the currently open transaction)."
>
> And I don't think that bothers me. As long as the array itself doesn't go
> belly up- then a few seconds of lost transactions are lar
Deon Cui gmail.com> writes:
>
> So I had a bunch of them lying around. We've bought a 16x SAS hotswap
> case and I've put in an AMD X4 955 BE with an ASUS M4A89GTD Pro as
> the mobo.
>
> In the two 16x PCI-E slots I've put in the 1068E controllers I had
> lying around. Everything is still being
I'm not having any luck hotswapping a drive attached to my Intel SASUC8I
(LSI-based) controller. The commands which work for the AMD AHCI ports don't
work for the LSI. Here's what "cfgadm -a" reports with all drives installed and
operational:
Ap_Id Type Recepta
A recent post on StorageMojo has some interesting numbers on how
vibrations can affect disks, especially consumer drives:
http://storagemojo.com/2010/05/19/shock-vibe-and-awe/
He mentions a 2005 study that I wasn't aware of. In its conclusion it
states:
Based on the results of thes
"You can lose all writes from the last committed transaction (i.e., the
one before the currently open transaction)."
I'll pick one- performance :)
Honestly- I wish I had a better grasp on the real world performance of these
drives. 50k IOPS is nice- and considering the incredible likelihood of d
First, I suggest you open a bug at https://defect.opensolaris.org/bz
and get a bug number.
Then, name your core dump something like "bug." and upload it
using the instructions here:
http://supportfiles.sun.com/upload
Update the bug once you've uploaded the core and supply the name of th
"You can lose all writes from the last committed transaction (i.e., the
one before the currently open transaction)."
And I don't think that bothers me. As long as the array itself doesn't go belly
up- then a few seconds of lost transactions are largely irrelevant- all of the
QA virtual machines
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 02:29:24PM -0700, Don wrote:
> "Since it ignores Cache Flush command and it doesn't have any
> persistant buffer storage, disabling the write cache is the best you
> can do."
>
> This actually brings up another question I had: What is the risk,
> beyond a few seconds of los
On May 19, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Don wrote:
> "Since it ignores Cache Flush command and it doesn't have any persistant
> buffer storage, disabling the write cache is the best you can do."
>
> This actually brings up another question I had: What is the risk, beyond a
> few seconds of lost writes, if
"Since it ignores Cache Flush command and it doesn't have any persistant buffer
storage, disabling the write cache is the best you can do."
This actually brings up another question I had: What is the risk, beyond a few
seconds of lost writes, if I lose power, there is no capacitor and the cache
Well the larger size of the Vertex, coupled with their smaller claimed write
amplification should result in sufficient service life for my needs. Their
claimed MTBF also matches the Intel X25-E's.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-dis
Hello and good day,
I will have two OpenSolaris snv_134 storage servers both connected to a
SAS chassis with SAS disks used to store zpool data. One storage server
will be the active storage server and the other will be the passive fail
over storage server. Both servers will be able to access the
OK, I got a core dump, what do I do with it now?
It is 1.2G in size.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:54 AM, John Andrunas wrote:
> Hmmm... no coredump even though I configured it.
>
> Here is the trace though I will see what I can do about the coredump
>
> r...@cluster:/export/home/admin# zfs mount
Miles Nordin wrote:
"et" == Erik Trimble writes:
et> frequently-accessed files from multiple VMs are in fact
et> identical, and thus with dedup, you'd only need to store one
et> copy in the cache.
although counterintuitive I thought this wasn't part of the initial
rel
> "et" == Erik Trimble writes:
et> frequently-accessed files from multiple VMs are in fact
et> identical, and thus with dedup, you'd only need to store one
et> copy in the cache.
although counterintuitive I thought this wasn't part of the initial
release. Maybe I'm wrong altoget
Hmmm... no coredump even though I configured it.
Here is the trace though I will see what I can do about the coredump
r...@cluster:/export/home/admin# zfs mount vol2/vm2
panic[cpu3]/thread=ff001f45ec60: BAD TRAP: type=e (#pf Page fault)
rp=ff001f45e950 addr=30 occurred in module "zfs" d
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 19 May 2010, Deon Cui wrote:
http://constantin.glez.de/blog/2010/04/ten-ways-easily-improve-oracle-solaris-zfs-filesystem-performance
It recommends that for every TB of storage you have you want 1GB of
RAM just for the metadata.
Interesting conclusion.
Is
- "Deon Cui" skrev:
> I am currently doing research on how much memory ZFS should have for a
> storage server.
>
> I came across this blog
>
> http://constantin.glez.de/blog/2010/04/ten-ways-easily-improve-oracle-solaris-zfs-filesystem-performance
>
> It recommends that for every TB of sto
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 07:50:13AM -0700, John Hoogerdijk wrote:
> Think about the potential problems if I don't mirror the log devices
> across the WAN.
If you don't mirror the log devices then your disaster recovery
semantics will be that you'll miss any transactions that hadn't been
committed t
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 05:33:05AM -0700, Chris Gerhard wrote:
> The reason for wanting to know is to try and find versions of a file.
No, there's no such guarantee. The same inode and generation number
pair is extremely unlikely to be re-used, but the inode number itself is
likely to be re-used.
On 19.05.10 17:53, John Andrunas wrote:
Not to my knowledge, how would I go about getting one? (CC'ing discuss)
man savecore and dumpadm.
Michael
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Mark J Musante wrote:
Do you have a coredump? Or a stack trace of the panic?
On Wed, 19 May 2010, John And
Not to my knowledge, how would I go about getting one? (CC'ing discuss)
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Mark J Musante wrote:
>
> Do you have a coredump? Or a stack trace of the panic?
>
> On Wed, 19 May 2010, John Andrunas wrote:
>
>> Running ZFS on a Nexenta box, I had a mirror get broken a
Do you have a coredump? Or a stack trace of the panic?
On Wed, 19 May 2010, John Andrunas wrote:
Running ZFS on a Nexenta box, I had a mirror get broken and apparently
the metadata is corrupt now. If I try and mount vol2 it works but if
I try and mount -a or mount vol2/vm2 is instantly kerne
Running ZFS on a Nexenta box, I had a mirror get broken and apparently
the metadata is corrupt now. If I try and mount vol2 it works but if
I try and mount -a or mount vol2/vm2 is instantly kernel panics and
reboots. Is it possible to recover from this? I don't care if I lose
the file listed bel
On Wed, 19 May 2010, Deon Cui wrote:
http://constantin.glez.de/blog/2010/04/ten-ways-easily-improve-oracle-solaris-zfs-filesystem-performance
It recommends that for every TB of storage you have you want 1GB of
RAM just for the metadata.
Interesting conclusion.
Is this really the case that
comment below...
On May 19, 2010, at 7:50 AM, John Hoogerdijk wrote:
>>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
>> [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of John
>> Hoogerdijk
>>>
>>> I'm building a campus cluster with identical
>> storage in two locations
>>> with ZFS mi
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 20:45, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>
> > The whole point of a log device is to accelerate
> sync writes, by providing
> > nonvolatile storage which is faster than the
> primary storage. You're not
> > going to get this if any part of the log device is
> at the other side of a
> > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
> [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of John
> Hoogerdijk
> >
> > I'm building a campus cluster with identical
> storage in two locations
> > with ZFS mirrors spanning both storage frames. Data
> will be mirrored
> > using zfs.
On Tue, 18 May 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Either I'm crazy, or I completely miss what you're asking. You want to have
one side of a mirror attached locally, and the other side of the mirror
attached ... via iscsi or something ... across the WAN? Even if you have a
really fast WAN (1Gb or s
On Wed, May 19, 2010 02:09, thomas wrote:
> Is it even possible to buy a zeus iops anywhere? I haven't been able to
> find one. I get the impression they mostly sell to other vendors like sun?
> I'd be curious what the price is on a 9GB zeus iops is these days?
Correct, their Zeus products are on
http://www.natecarlson.com/2010/05/07/review-supermicros-sc847a-4u-chassis-with-36-drive-bays/
Review: SuperMicro’s SC847 (SC847A) 4U chassis with 36 drive bays
May 7, 2010 · 9 comments
in Geek Stuff, Linux, Storage, Virtualization, Work Stuff
SuperMicro SC847 Thumbnail
[Or "my quest for th
On Tue, May 18, 2010 20:45, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> The whole point of a log device is to accelerate sync writes, by providing
> nonvolatile storage which is faster than the primary storage. You're not
> going to get this if any part of the log device is at the other side of a
> WAN. So eithe
As for the Vertex drives- if they are within +-10% of the Intel they're still
doing it for half of what the Intel drive costs- so it's an option- not a great
option- but still an option.
Yes, but Intel is SLC. Much more endurance.
___
zfs-discuss
The reason for wanting to know is to try and find versions of a file.
If a file is renamed then the only way to know that the renamed file was the
same as a file in a snapshot would be if the inode numbers matched. However for
that to be reliable it would require the i-nodes are not reused.
If
Well- 40k IOPS is the current claim from ZEUS- and they're the benchmark. They
use to be 17k IOPS. How real any of these numbers are from any manufacturer is
a guess.
Given the Intel's refusal to honor a cache flush, and their performance
problems with the cache disabled- I don't trust them any
My work has bought a bunch of IBM servers recently as ESX hosts. They all come
with LSI SAS1068E controllers as standard, which we remove and upgrade to a
raid 5 controller.
So I had a bunch of them lying around. We've bought a 16x SAS hotswap case and
I've put in an AMD X4 955 BE with an ASUS
I am currently doing research on how much memory ZFS should have for a storage
server.
I came across this blog
http://constantin.glez.de/blog/2010/04/ten-ways-easily-improve-oracle-solaris-zfs-filesystem-performance
It recommends that for every TB of storage you have you want 1GB of RAM just
f
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>
> If I create a file in a file system and then snapshot the file system.
>
> Then delete the file.
>
> Is it guaranteed that while the snapshot exists no new file will be
> created with the same inode number as the deleted file?
If I create a file in a file system and then snapshot the file system.
Then delete the file.
Is it guaranteed that while the snapshot exists no new file will be created
with the same inode number as the deleted file?
--chris
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
> it looks like your 'sd5' disk is performing horribly
> bad and except
> for the horrible performance of 'sd5' (which
> bottlenecks the I/O),
> 'sd4' would look just as bad. Regardless, the first
> step would be to
> investigate 'sd5'.
Hi Bob !
I've already tried the pool without the sd5 dis
On 05/19/10 09:34 PM, Philippe wrote:
Hi !
It is strange because I've checked the SMART data of the 4 disks, and
everything seems really OK ! (on another hardware/controller, because I needed
Windows to check it). Maybe it's a problem with the SAS/SATA controller ?!
One question : if I halt t
> How full is your filesystem? Give us the output of
> "zfs list"
> You might be having a hardware problem, or maybe it's
> extremely full.
Hi Edward,
The "_db" filesystems have a recordsise of 16K (the others have the default
128K) :
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOIN
> mm.. Service time of sd3..5 are waay too high to be
> good working disks.
> 21 writes shouldn't take 1.3 seconds.
>
> Some of your disks are not feeling well, possibly
> doing
> block-reallocation like mad all the time, or block
> recovery of some
> form. Service times should be closer to what s
Willard Korfhage wrote:
This afternoon, messages like the following started appearing in
/var/adm/messages:
May 18 13:46:37 fs8 scsi: [ID 365881 kern.info]
/p...@0,0/pci8086,2...@1/pci15d9,a...@0 (mpt0):
May 18 13:46:37 fs8 Log info 0x3108 received for target 5.
May 18 13:46:37 fs8
On 2010-05-19 08.32, sensille wrote:
Don wrote:
With that in mind- Is anyone using the new OCZ Vertex 2 SSD's as a ZIL?
They're claiming 50k IOPS (4k Write- Aligned), 2 million hour MTBF, TRIM
support, etc. That's more write IOPS than the ZEUS (40k IOPS, $) but at
half the price of an In
45 matches
Mail list logo
