> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dcpool/nodedup/bigzerofile
Ahh- I misunderstood your pool layout earlier. Now I see what you were doing.
>People on this forum have seen and reported that adding a 100Mb file tanked
>their
> multiterabyte pool's performance, and removing the file boosted it back up.
Sadly
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 03:57:28PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > My question is -- is there a way to tune the MPT driver or even ZFS
> > itself to be more/less aggressive on what it sees as a "failure"
> > scenario?
>
> You didn't mention
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> My question is -- is there a way to tune the MPT driver or even ZFS
> itself to be more/less aggressive on what it sees as a "failure"
> scenario?
You didn't mention what drives you had attached, but I'm guessing they
were normal "desktop"
it is my understanding for write (fast) consider faster HDD (SSD) for ZIL
for read consider faster HDD(SSD) for L2ARC
There were many discussion for V12N env raid1 is better than raidz
On 5/10/2011 3:31 PM, Don wrote:
I've been going through my iostat, zilstat, and other outputs all to no avail.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 02:42:40PM -0700, Jim Klimov wrote:
> In a recent post "r-mexico" wrote that they had to parse system
> messages and "manually" fail the drives on a similar, though
> different, occasion:
>
> http://opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=515815#515815
Thanks Jim, good
Don,
> Is it possible to modify the GUID associated with a ZFS volume imported into
> STMF?
>
> To clarify- I have a ZFS volume I have imported into STMF and export via
> iscsi. I have a number of snapshots of this volume. I need to temporarily go
> back to an older snapshot without removing a
In a recent post "r-mexico" wrote that they had to parse system messages and
"manually" fail the drives on a similar, though different, occasion:
http://opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=515815#515815
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
Well, as I wrote in other threads - i have a pool named "pool" on physical
disks, and a compressed volume in this pool which i loopback-mount over iSCSI
to make another pool named "dcpool".
When files in "dcpool" are deleted, blocks are not zeroed out by current ZFS
and they are still allocated
Is it possible to modify the GUID associated with a ZFS volume imported into
STMF?
To clarify- I have a ZFS volume I have imported into STMF and export via iscsi.
I have a number of snapshots of this volume. I need to temporarily go back to
an older snapshot without removing all the more recent
I've been going through my iostat, zilstat, and other outputs all to no avail.
None of my disks ever seem to show outrageous service times, the load on the
box is never high, and if the darned thing is CPU bound- I'm not even sure
where to look.
"(traversing DDT blocks even if in memory, etc -
Sorry for the old posts that some of you are seeing to zfs-discuss. The
link between Jive and mailman was broken so I fixed that. However, once
this was fixed Jive started sending every single post from the
zfs-discuss board on Jive to the mail list. Quite a few posts were sent
before I real
On 10 May, 2011 - Tomas Ögren sent me these 0,9K bytes:
> On 23 November, 2005 - Benjamin Lewis sent me these 3,0K bytes:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm running Solaris Express build 27a on an amd64 machine and
> > fuser(1M) isn't behaving
> > as I would expect for zfs filesystems. Various google and
On 23 November, 2005 - Benjamin Lewis sent me these 3,0K bytes:
> Hello,
>
> I'm running Solaris Express build 27a on an amd64 machine and
> fuser(1M) isn't behaving
> as I would expect for zfs filesystems. Various google and
...
> #fuser -c /
> /:[lots of other PIDs] 20617tm [others] 2041
I use this construct to get something better than ""
args[2]->fi_pathname != "" ? args[2]->fi_pathname :
args[1]->dev_pathname
In the latest versions of Solaris 10, you'll see IOs not directly issued by the
app
show up as being owned by 'zpool-POOLNAME' where POOLNAME is the real name of
Ah, did not see your follow up. Thanks.
Chris
On Thu, 30 Nov 2006, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
> Sorry, Bart, is correct:
>
> If new_device is not specified, it defaults to
> old_device. This form of replacement is useful after an
> existing disk has failed
So there is no current way to specify the creation of a 3 disk raid-z
array with a known missing disk?
On 12/5/06, David Bustos wrote:
> Quoth Thomas Garner on Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 06:41:15PM -0500:
> > I currently have a 400GB disk that is full of data on a linux system.
> > If I buy 2 more disk
Robert,
> I belive it's not solved yet but you may want to try with
> latest nevada and see if there's a difference.
It's fixed in the upcoming Solaris 10 U3 and also in Solaris Express
post build 47 I think.
- Luke
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:33:28AM -0500, Tao Chen wrote:
> On 8/8/06, przemol...@poczta.fm wrote:
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >Solaris 10 GA + latest recommended patches:
> >
> >while runing dtrace:
> >
> >bash-3.00# dtrace -n 'io:::start {@[execname, args[2]->fi_pathname] =
> >count();}'
> >...
> >
> >
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 10:01:15AM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello przemolicc,
>
> Thursday, June 29, 2006, 8:01:26 AM, you wrote:
>
> ppf> On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> >> ppf> What I wanted to point out is the Al's example: he wrote about
> >> damag
przemol...@poczta.fm wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:59:29AM +0800, Raymond Xiong wrote:
>
>
>>It doesn't. Page 11 of the following slides illustrates how COW
>>works in ZFS:
>>
>>http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/zfs_last.pdf
>>
>>"Blocks containing active data are never over
Well, here's my previous summary off list to different solaris folk
(regarding NFS serving via ZFS and iSCSI):
I want to use ZFS as a NAS with no bounds on the backing hardware (not
restricted to one boxes capacity). Thus, there are two options: FC SAN
or iSCSI. In my case, I have multi-building c
Hello,
I'm running Solaris Express build 27a on an amd64 machine and
fuser(1M) isn't behaving
as I would expect for zfs filesystems. Various google and
opensolaris.org searches didn't
turn up anything on the subject, so I thought I'd ask the experts.
The specific problem is
that "fuser -c /some_
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Tomas Ögren wrote:
> Slightly off topic, but we had an IBM RS/6000 43P with a PowerPC 604e
> cpu, which had about 60MB/s memory bandwidth (which is kind of bad for a
> 332MHz cpu) and its disks could do 70-80MB/s or so.. in some other
> machine..
It wasn't that lon
On 10 May 2011, at 16:44, Hung-Sheng Tsao (LaoTsao) Ph. D. wrote:
>
> IMHO, zfs need to run in all kind of HW
> T-series CMT server that can help sha calculation since T1 day, did not see
> any work in ZFS to take advantage it
That support would be in the crypto framework though, not ZFS per s
We recently had a disk fail on one of our whitebox (SuperMicro) ZFS
arrays (Solaris 10 U9).
The disk began throwing errors like this:
May 5 04:33:44 dev-zfs4 scsi: [ID 243001 kern.warning] WARNING:
/pci@0,0/pci8086,3410@9/pci15d9,400@0 (mpt_sas0):
May 5 04:33:44 dev-zfs4mptsas_handle_e
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Anatoly wrote:
> Good day,
>
> I think ZFS can take advantage of using GPU for sha256 calculation,
> encryption and maybe compression. Modern video card, like 5xxx or 6xxx ATI
> HD Series can do calculation of sha256 50-100 times faster than modern 4
> cores CPU.
IMHO, zfs need to run in all kind of HW
T-series CMT server that can help sha calculation since T1 day, did not
see any work in ZFS to take advantage it
On 5/10/2011 11:29 AM, Anatoly wrote:
Good day,
I think ZFS can take advantage of using GPU for sha256 calculation,
encryption and maybe
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Anatoly wrote:
> Good day,
>
> I think ZFS can take advantage of using GPU for sha256 calculation,
> encryption and maybe compression. Modern video card, like 5xxx or 6xxx ATI
> HD Series can do calculation of sha256 50-100 times faster than modern 4
> cores CPU.
Good day,
I think ZFS can take advantage of using GPU for sha256 calculation,
encryption and maybe compression. Modern video card, like 5xxx or 6xxx
ATI HD Series can do calculation of sha256 50-100 times faster than
modern 4 cores CPU.
kgpu project for linux shows nice results.
'zfs scrub'
Op 09-05-11 15:42, Edward Ned Harvey schreef:
>> > in my previous
>> > post my arc_meta_used was bigger than my arc_meta_limit (by about 50%)
> I have the same thing. But as I sit here and run more and more extensive
> tests on it ... it seems like arc_meta_limit is sort of a soft limit. Or it
>
30 matches
Mail list logo
