Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

2010/12/24 Edward Ned Harvey : >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Stephan Budach >> >> Now, I am wondering if using a mirror of such 15k SAS drives would be a >> good-enough fit for a ZIL on a zpool that is mainly used for file

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Stephan Budach > > Now, I am wondering if using a mirror of such 15k SAS drives would be a > good-enough fit for a ZIL on a zpool that is mainly used for file services via > AFP and SMB. For s

Re: [zfs-discuss] BOOT, ZIL, L2ARC one one SSD?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bill Werner > > on a single 60GB SSD drive, use FDISK to create 3 physical partitions, a 20GB > for boot, a 30GB for L2ARC and a 10GB for ZIL? Or is 3 physical Solaris > partitions on a disk

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:25:43AM +0100, Stephan Budach wrote: > as I have learned from the discussion about which SSD to use as ZIL > drives, I stumbled across this article, that discusses short > stroking for increasing IOPs on SAS and SATA drives: There was a thread on this a while back. I fo

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

Am 23.12.10 19:05, schrieb Eric D. Mudama: On Thu, Dec 23 at 11:25, Stephan Budach wrote: Hi, as I have learned from the discussion about which SSD to use as ZIL drives, I stumbled across this article, that discusses short stroking for increasing IOPs on SAS and SATA drives: [1]htt

Re: [zfs-discuss] stupid ZFS question - floating point operations

On 23/12/2010 17:09, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Darren J Moffat wrote: On 22/12/2010 20:27, Garrett D'Amore wrote: That said, some operations -- and cryptographic ones in particular -- may use floating point registers and operations because for some architectures (sun4u rings

Re: [zfs-discuss] stupid ZFS question - floating point operations

On 23/12/2010 15:18, Garrett D'Amore wrote: Thanks for the clarification. I guess I need to go back and figure out how ZFS crypto keying is performed. I guess most likely the key is generated from some sort of one-way hash from a passphrase? See http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_encryption_

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

On Thu, Dec 23 at 10:49, Christopher George wrote: My assumption was stated in the paragraph prior, i.e. vendor promised random write IOPS. Based on the inquires we receive, most *actually* expect an OCZ SSD to perform as specified which is 50K 4KB random writes for both the Vertex 2 EX and the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

> You're assuming that the "into an empty device" performance is > required by their application. My assumption was stated in the paragraph prior, i.e. vendor promised random write IOPS. Based on the inquires we receive, most *actually* expect an OCZ SSD to perform as specified which is 50K 4KB

Re: [zfs-discuss] stupid ZFS question - floating point operations

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 09:32:13AM +, Darren J Moffat wrote: > On 22/12/2010 20:27, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >That said, some operations -- and cryptographic ones in particular -- > >may use floating point registers and operations because for some > >architectures (sun4u rings a bell) this can

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

On Thu, Dec 23 at 11:25, Stephan Budach wrote: Hi, as I have learned from the discussion about which SSD to use as ZIL drives, I stumbled across this article, that discusses short stroking for increasing IOPs on SAS and SATA drives: [1]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/short-strokin

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

On Thu, Dec 23 at 17:11, Deano wrote: Currently firmware is meant to help conventional file system usage. However ZIL isn't normal usage and as such *IF* and it's a big if, we can effectively bypass the firmware trying to be clever or at least help it be clever then we can avoid the downgrade ove

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

On Thu, Dec 23 at 9:14, Erik Trimble wrote: The longer-term solution is to have SSDs change how they are designed, moving away from the current one-page-of-multiple-blocks as the atomic entity of writing, and straight to a one-block-per-page setup. Don't hold your breath. Will never happen

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

On Wed, Dec 22 at 23:29, Christopher George wrote: Would having to perform a Secure Erase every hour, day, or even week really be the most cost effective use of an administrators time? You're assuming that the "into an empty device" performance is required by their application. For many users,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

On 12/23/2010 7:57 AM, Deano wrote: In an ideal world, if we could obtain details on how to reset/format blocks of a SSD, we could do it automatically running behind the ZIL. As a log its going in one direction, a background task could clean up behind it, making the performance lowing over tim

[zfs-discuss] Understanding Disk Errors

I am trying to understand the various error conditions reported by iostat. I noticed during a recent scrub that my transport errors were increasing. However, after a fair amount of searching I am unsure if that indicates a drive failure or not. I also have a lot of illegal request errors. No

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

Secure Erase is currently a entire drive function, its writes all the cell resetting it. It also updates the firmware GC maps so it knows the drive is clean. Trim just gives more info the firmware that a block is unused (as normally a delete is just updating an index table and the firmware has no w

Re: [zfs-discuss] stupid ZFS question - floating point operations

Darren J Moffat wrote: > On 22/12/2010 20:27, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > That said, some operations -- and cryptographic ones in particular -- > > may use floating point registers and operations because for some > > architectures (sun4u rings a bell) this can make certain expensive > > Well remem

[zfs-discuss] Happy Holidays...

Hey ZFSers, This is a moderated discussion list and if you are not a member of this list, your postings are not posted until a moderator approves them. The list moderators will be on vacation and posting approvals will be delayed. If you are not a member of this list and you want to post to this

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

> However, this *can* be overcome by frequently re-formatting the SSD (not > the Solaris format, a low-level format using a vendor-supplied utility). For those looking to "Secure Erase" a OCZ SandForce based SSD to reclaim performance, the following OCZ Forum thread might be of interest: http:/

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

In an ideal world, if we could obtain details on how to reset/format blocks of a SSD, we could do it automatically running behind the ZIL. As a log its going in one direction, a background task could clean up behind it, making the performance lowing over time a non-issue for the ZIL. A first sta

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 07:35:29AM -0800, Deano wrote: > If anybody does know of any source to the secure erase/reformatters, > I’ll happily volunteer to do the port and then maintain it. > > I’m currently in talks with several SSD and driver chip hardware > peeps with regard getting datasheets fo

Re: [zfs-discuss] stupid ZFS question - floating point operations

On 22/12/2010 20:27, Garrett D'Amore wrote: That said, some operations -- and cryptographic ones in particular -- may use floating point registers and operations because for some architectures (sun4u rings a bell) this can make certain expensive Well remembered! There are sun4u optimisations t

[zfs-discuss] BOOT, ZIL, L2ARC one one SSD?

60GB SSD drives using the SF 1222 controller can be had now for around $100. I know ZFS likes to use the entire disk to do it's magic, but under X86, is the entire disk the entire disk, or is it one physical X86 partition? In the past I have created 2 partitions with FDISK, but format will only

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

> > got it attached to a UPS with very conservative > shut-down timing. Or > > are there other host failures aside from power a > ZIL would be > > vulnerable too (system hard-locks?)? > > Correct, a system hard-lock is another example... How about comparing a non-battery backed ZIL to running a Z

Re: [zfs-discuss] Fwd: zpool import despite missing log [PSARC/2010/292Self Review]

Yesterday I was able to import zpool with missing log device using "zpool import -f -m myzpool" command. I had to boot from Oracle Solaris Express Live CD. Then I just did "zpool remove myzpool logdevice" That's it. Now I've got my pool back with all the data and with ONLINE status. I had my zpool

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

If anybody does know of any source to the secure erase/reformatters, I'll happily volunteer to do the port and then maintain it. I'm currently in talks with several SSD and driver chip hardware peeps with regard getting datasheets for some SSD products etc. for the purpose of better support under

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

We should get the reformatter(s) ported to illumos/solaris, if source is available. Something to consider. - Garrett -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org on behalf of Erik Trimble Sent: Wed 12/22/2010 10:36 PM To: Christopher George Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

Am 23.12.10 13:09, schrieb Phil Harman: On 23 Dec 2010, at 11:53, Stephan Budach > wrote: Am 23.12.10 12:18, schrieb Phil Harman: Sent from my iPhone (which had a lousy user interface which makes it all too easy for a clumsy oaf like me to touch "Send" before I'm

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

On 23 Dec 2010, at 11:53, Stephan Budach wrote: > Am 23.12.10 12:18, schrieb Phil Harman: >> >> Sent from my iPhone (which had a lousy user interface which makes it all too >> easy for a clumsy oaf like me to touch "Send" before I'm done)... >> >> On 23 Dec 2010, at 11:07, Phil Harman wrote:

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

Am 23.12.10 12:18, schrieb Phil Harman: Sent from my iPhone (which had a lousy user interface which makes it all too easy for a clumsy oaf like me to touch "Send" before I'm done)... On 23 Dec 2010, at 11:07, Phil Harman > wrote: Great question. In "good enough"

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

Sent from my iPhone (which had a lousy user interface which makes it all too easy for a clumsy oaf like me to touch "Send" before I'm done)... On 23 Dec 2010, at 11:07, Phil Harman wrote: > Great question. In "good enough" computing, beauty is in the eye of the > beholder. My home NAS applianc

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

Great question. In "good enough" computing, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My home NAS appliance uses IDE and SATA drives withoutba dedicated ZIL http://dtrace.org/blogs/ahl/2010/11/15/zil-analysis-from-chris-george/ "if HDDs and commodity SSDs continue to be target ZIL devices, ZFS coul

[zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

Hi, as I have learned from the discussion about which SSD to use as ZIL drives, I stumbled across this article, that discusses short stroking for increasing IOPs on SAS and SATA drives: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/short-stroking-hdd,2157.html Now, I am wondering if using a mirror of