Re: [zfs-discuss] snapshot .zfs folder can only be seen in the top of a file system?

>> > I think it should go like what NetApp's snapshot does. >> >> There was a long thread on this topic earlier this year. Please see the >> archives for details. > > Do you have the URL? I don't have a long subscription >> I too do not have a long subscription, and I would be interested in the su

Re: [zfs-discuss] snapshot .zfs folder can only be seen in the top of a file system?

> -Original Message- > From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com] > Sent: 星期六, 七月 24, 2010 12:48 > To: Fred Liu > Cc: Edward Ned Harvey; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] snapshot .zfs folder can only be seen in the > top of a file system? > > > > On

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs raidz1 and traditional raid 5 perfomrance comparision

On Jul 23, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: Arne Jansen [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net] >>> >>> Can anyone else confirm or deny the correctness of this statement? >> >> As I understand it that's the whole point of raidz. Each block is its >> own >> stripe. > > Nope, that doesn't

Re: [zfs-discuss] snapshot .zfs folder can only be seen in the top of a file system?

On Jul 23, 2010, at 7:33 PM, Fred Liu wrote: > Thanks. > But too many file systems may be an issue for management and also normal user > cannot create file system. The ability to create or snapshot a file system can easily be delegated to a user. > I think it should go like what NetApp's sn

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

Fundamentally, my recommendation is to choose NFS if your clients can use it. You'll get a lot of potential advantages in the NFS/zfs integration, so better performance. Plus you can serve multiple clients, etc. The only reason to use iSCSI is when you don't have a choice, IMO. You should only

Re: [zfs-discuss] snapshot .zfs folder can only be seen in the top of a file system?

Thanks. But too many file systems may be an issue for management and also normal user cannot create file system. I think it should go like what NetApp's snapshot does. It is a pity. Thanks. Fred > -Original Message- > From: Edward Ned Harvey [mailto:sh...@nedharvey.com] > Sent: 星期六, 七月

Re: [zfs-discuss] snapshot .zfs folder can only be seen in the top of a file system?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Fred Liu > > Is it true? Any way to find it in every hierarchy? Yup. Nope. If you use ZFS, you make a filesystem at whatever level you need it, in order for the .zfs directory to be availabl

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug > > On a related note - all other things being equal, is there any reason > to choose NFS over ISCI, or vice-versa? I'm currently looking at this iscsi and NFS are completely dif

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs raidz1 and traditional raid 5 perfomrance comparision

> From: Arne Jansen [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net] > > > > Can anyone else confirm or deny the correctness of this statement? > > As I understand it that's the whole point of raidz. Each block is its > own > stripe. Nope, that doesn't count for confirmation. It is at least theoretically possible to

[zfs-discuss] snapshot .zfs folder can only be seen in the top of a file system?

Hi, Is it true? Any way to find it in every hierarchy? Thanks. Fred ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

On 7/23/2010 3:39 AM, tomwaters wrote: There is alot there to reply to...but I will try and help... Re. TLER. Do not worry about TLER when using ZFS. ZFS will handle it either way and will NOT time out and drop the drive...it may wait a long time, but it will not time out and drop the drive -

Re: [zfs-discuss] 1tb SATA drives

> "bh" == Brandon High writes: bh> For those 5 minutes, you'll see horrible performance. If the bh> drive returns an error within 7-10 seconds, it would only take bh> 35-50 seconds to fail. For those 1 - 5 minutes, AIUI you see NO performance, not bad performance. And pools othe

Re: [zfs-discuss] File cloning

> -Original Message- > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org > [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Miles Nordin > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 2:42 PM > To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] File cloning > > > "sw" == Saxon, Will w

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS volume turned into a socket - any way to restore data?

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Jul 23, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Ruslan Sivak wrote: > > > > > > # zfs umount data/rt > > #ls -lahs > > ... > > 2.0K drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Jul 22 16:48 rt > > 2.0K srwxr-xr-x 17 root root 17 Jul 21 17:43 rt2 > > If at this point data/rt is

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS volume turned into a socket - any way to restore data?

On Jul 23, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Ruslan Sivak wrote: > I have recently upgraded from NexentaStor 2 to NexentaStor 3 and somehow one > of my volumes got corrupted. Its showing up as a socket. Has anyone seen > this before? Is there a way to get my data back? It seems like it's still > there, but

[zfs-discuss] Random system hang build 134

Symptoms: 1. System remains pingable 2. When trying to ssh in terminal hangs after entering pass 3. At the console terminal hangs after entering pass 4. Problem persists after disabling snapshots/compression/dedup Solution: Hard reboot (A+F1 does not work) Configuration: Supermicro Mobo 24 x 2

Re: [zfs-discuss] Increase resilver priority

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > On 07/23/10 02:31, Giovanni Tirloni wrote: >> >>  We've seen some resilvers on idle servers that are taking ages. Is it >> possible to speed up resilver operations somehow? >> >>  Eg. iostat shows<5MB/s writes on the replaced disks. > > Wh

Re: [zfs-discuss] Increase resilver priority

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Jul 23, 2010, at 2:31 AM, Giovanni Tirloni wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> We've seen some resilvers on idle servers that are taking ages. Is it >> possible to speed up resilver operations somehow? >> >> Eg. iostat shows <5MB/s writes on the re

Re: [zfs-discuss] Increase resilver priority

On 07/23/10 02:31, Giovanni Tirloni wrote: We've seen some resilvers on idle servers that are taking ages. Is it possible to speed up resilver operations somehow? Eg. iostat shows<5MB/s writes on the replaced disks. What build of opensolaris are you running? There were some recent improv

Re: [zfs-discuss] Increase resilver priority

On Jul 23, 2010, at 2:31 AM, Giovanni Tirloni wrote: > Hello, > > We've seen some resilvers on idle servers that are taking ages. Is it > possible to speed up resilver operations somehow? > > Eg. iostat shows <5MB/s writes on the replaced disks. This is lower than I expect, but It may be IOPS b

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

Phil Harmon wrote: > > Not the thread hijack, but I assume a SSD ZIL will similarly improve > an iSCSI target...as I am getting 2-5MB on that too. > > Yes, it generally will. I've seen some huge improvements with iSCSI, > but YMMV depending on your config, application and workload. Sorry this i

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs add -r output

Hi Ryan, You are seeing this CR: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6916574 zpool add -n displays incorrect structure This is a display problem only. Thanks, Cindy On 07/22/10 15:54, Ryan Schwartz wrote: I've got a system running s10x_u7wos_08 with only half of the disks provi

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs raidz1 and traditional raid 5 perfomrance comparision

Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: Robert Milkowski [mailto:mi...@task.gda.pl] [In raidz] The issue is that each zfs filesystem block is basically spread across n-1 devices. So every time you want to read back a single fs block you need to wait for all n-1 devices to provide you with a part of it

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Phil Harman Milkowski and Neil Perrin's zil synchronicity [PSARC/2010/108] changes with sync=disabled, when the changes work their way into an available The fact that pe

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Sigbjorn Lie > > What about mirroring? Do I need mirrored ZIL devices in case of a power > outage? You don't need mirroring for the sake of *power outage* but you *do* need mirroring for the s

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Sigbjorn Lie > > What size of ZIL device would be recommened for my pool consisting for Get the smallest one. Even an unrealistic high performance scenario cannot come close to using 32G. I

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Phil Harman > > Milkowski and Neil Perrin's zil synchronicity [PSARC/2010/108] changes > with sync=disabled, when the changes work their way into an available > > The fact that people run unsaf

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs raidz1 and traditional raid 5 perfomrance comparision

> From: Robert Milkowski [mailto:mi...@task.gda.pl] > > [In raidz] The issue is that each zfs filesystem block is basically > spread across > n-1 devices. > So every time you want to read back a single fs block you need to wait > for all n-1 devices to provide you with a part of it - and keep in m

Re: [zfs-discuss] physically removed a pool - how to I tell it to forget the pool?

It was fine on the reboot...so even though zfs destroy threw up the errors, it did remove them...just needed a reboot to refresh/remove it in the zpool list. thanks. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

On 23/07/2010 10:53, Sigbjorn Lie wrote: The X25-V has up to 25k random read iops and up to 2.5k random write iops per second, so that would seem okay for approx $80. :) What about mirroring? Do I need mirrored ZIL devices in case of a power outage? Note there is not a ZIL device, there is a

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

On Fri, July 23, 2010 11:21, Thomas Burgess wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Sigbjorn Lie wrote: > > >> I see I have already received several replies, thanks to all! >> >> >> I would not like to risk losing any data, so I believe a ZIL device would >> be the way for me. I see these exist

[zfs-discuss] Increase resilver priority

Hello, We've seen some resilvers on idle servers that are taking ages. Is it possible to speed up resilver operations somehow? Eg. iostat shows <5MB/s writes on the replaced disks. I'm thinking a small performance degradation would be sometimes better than the increased risk window (where a v

Re: [zfs-discuss] physically removed a pool - how to I tell it to forget the pool?

If all disks were actually removed, renaming /etc/zfs/zpool.cache and rebooting should do the trick. I am not sure but you may have to import root pool at next reboot. F. tomwaters wrote: Hi guys, I physically removed disks from a pool without offlining the pool first...(yes I know) anyway

[zfs-discuss] physically removed a pool - how to I tell it to forget the pool?

Hi guys, I physically removed disks from a pool without offlining the pool first...(yes I know) anyway I now want to delete/destroy the pool...but zpool destroy -f dvr says "can not open 'dvr':no such pool I can not offline it or delete it! I want to reuse the name dvr but how do I do this? i

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Sigbjorn Lie wrote: > I see I have already received several replies, thanks to all! > > I would not like to risk losing any data, so I believe a ZIL device would > be the way for me. I see > these exists in different prices. Any reason why I would not buy a cheap

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

On 23/07/2010 10:02, Sigbjorn Lie wrote: On Fri, July 23, 2010 10:42, tomwaters wrote: I agree, I get apalling NFS speeds compared to CIFS/Samba..ie. CIFS/Samba of 95-105MB and NFS of 5-20MB. Not the thread hijack, but I assume a SSD ZIL will similarly improve an iSCSI target...as I am g

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

Sent from my iPhone On 23 Jul 2010, at 09:42, tomwaters wrote: > I agree, I get apalling NFS speeds compared to CIFS/Samba..ie. CIFS/Samba of > 95-105MB and NFS of 5-20MB. > > Not the thread hijack, but I assume a SSD ZIL will similarly improve an iSCSI > target...as I am getting 2-5MB on t

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

On Fri, July 23, 2010 10:42, tomwaters wrote: > I agree, I get apalling NFS speeds compared to CIFS/Samba..ie. CIFS/Samba of > 95-105MB and NFS of > 5-20MB. > > > Not the thread hijack, but I assume a SSD ZIL will similarly improve an iSCSI > target...as I am > getting 2-5MB on that too. -- > Thi

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

I see I have already received several replies, thanks to all! I would not like to risk losing any data, so I believe a ZIL device would be the way for me. I see these exists in different prices. Any reason why I would not buy a cheap one? Like the Intel X25-V SSD 40GB 2,5"? What size of ZIL dev

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

On 23 Jul 2010, at 09:18, Andrew Gabriel wrote: > Thomas Burgess wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Sigbjorn Lie > > wrote: >> >>Hi, >> >>I've been searching around on the Internet to fine some help with >>this, but have been >>unsuccessfu

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

I agree, I get apalling NFS speeds compared to CIFS/Samba..ie. CIFS/Samba of 95-105MB and NFS of 5-20MB. Not the thread hijack, but I assume a SSD ZIL will similarly improve an iSCSI target...as I am getting 2-5MB on that too. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

Thomas Burgess wrote: On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Sigbjorn Lie > wrote: Hi, I've been searching around on the Internet to fine some help with this, but have been unsuccessfull so far. I have some performance issues with my file server. I

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Sigbjorn Lie wrote: > Hi, > > I've been searching around on the Internet to fine some help with this, but > have been > unsuccessfull so far. > > I have some performance issues with my file server. I have an OpenSolaris > server with a Pentium D > 3GHz CPU, 4GB of

Re: [zfs-discuss] L2ARC and ZIL on same SSD?

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Orvar Korvar < knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Are there any drawbacks to partition a SSD in two parts and use L2ARC on > one partition, and ZIL on the other? Any thoughts? > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

I've found the Seagate 7200.12 1tb drives and Hitachi 7k2000 2TB drives to be by far the best. I've read lots of horror stories about any WD drive with 4k sectorsit'sbest to stay away from them. I've also read plenty of people say that the green drives are terrible. __

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

That's because NFS adds synchronous writes to the mix (e.g. the client needs to know certain transactions made it to nonvolatile storage in case the server restarts etc). The simplest safe solution, although not cheap, is to add an SSD log device to the pool. On 23 Jul 2010, at 08:11, "Sigbjorn

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

There is alot there to reply to...but I will try and help... Re. TLER. Do not worry about TLER when using ZFS. ZFS will handle it either way and will NOT time out and drop the drive...it may wait a long time, but it will not time out and drop the drive - nor will it have an issue if you do enabl

[zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

Hi, I've been searching around on the Internet to fine some help with this, but have been unsuccessfull so far. I have some performance issues with my file server. I have an OpenSolaris server with a Pentium D 3GHz CPU, 4GB of memory, and a RAIDZ1 over 4 x Seagate (ST31500341AS) 1,5TB SATA dri