2009/9/7 Ritesh Raj Sarraf :
> The Discard/Trim command is also available as part of the SCSI standard now.
>
> Now, if you look from a SAN perspective, you will need a little of both.
> Filesystems will need to be able to deallocate blocks and then the same
> should be triggered as a SCSI Trim to
2009/9/7 Richard Elling :
> On Sep 7, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
>> The purpose of the TRIM command is to allow the FLASH device to reclaim
>> and erase storage at its leisure so that the writer does not need to wait
>> for erasure once the device becomes full. Otherwise the FLASH
2009/9/2 Eric Sproul :
>
> Adam,
> Is it known approximately when this bug was introduced? I have a system
> running
> snv_111 with a large raidz2 pool and I keep running into checksum errors
> though
> the drives are brand new. They are 2TB drives, but the pool is only about 14%
> used (~250G/
On Nov 26, 2007 8:41 PM, Joe Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was playing with a Gigabyte i-RAM card and found out it works great
> to improve overall performance when there are a lot of writes of small
> files over NFS to such a ZFS pool.
>
> However, I noted a frequent situation in periods o
On Nov 19, 2007 10:08 PM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Cone wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > Here's a possibly-silly proposal from a non-expert.
> >
> > Summarising the problem:
> >- there's a conflict between small ZFS record size, for good random
> > update performance, and
if it is a
good idea. (I don't have any UFS filesystems.) Perhaps someone else
can comment on this?
Still, you will have no redundancy during this operation, so I hope
you have backups.
Chris Csanady
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
z
On 6/2/07, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Csanady wrote:
> On 6/1/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On June 1, 2007 9:44:23 AM -0700 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Semiconductor memori
On 6/1/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On June 1, 2007 9:44:23 AM -0700 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...]
> Semiconductor memories are accessed in parallel. Spinning disks are
> accessed
> serially. Let's take a look at a few examples and see what this looks
> like...
>
On 5/7/07, Tony Galway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings learned ZFS geeks & guru's,
Yet another question comes from my continued ZFS performance testing. This has
to do with zpool iostat, and the strangeness that I do see.
I've created an eight (8) disk raidz pool from a Sun 3510 fibre arra
On 4/11/07, Marco van Lienen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A colleague at work and I have followed the same steps, included
running a digest on the /test/file, on a SXCE:61 build today and
can confirm the exact same, and disturbing?, result. My colleague
mentioned to me he has witnessed the same '
In a recent message, I detailed the excessive checksum errors that
occurred after replacing a disk. It seems that after a resilver
completes, it leaves a large number of blocks in the pool which fail
to checksum properly. Afterward, it is necessary to scrub the pool in
order to correct these err
I have some further data now, and I don't think that it is a hardware
problem. Half way through the scrub, I rebooted and exchanged the
controller and cable used with the "bad" disk. After restarting the
scrub, it proceeded error free until about the point where it left
off, and then it resumed
After replacing a bad disk and waiting for the resilver to complete, I
started a scrub of the pool. Currently, I have the pool mounted
readonly, yet almost a quarter of the I/O is writes to the new disk.
In fact, it looks like there are so many checksum errors, that zpool
doesn't even list them p
It looks like the following bug is still open:
6424510 usb ignores DKIOCFLUSHWRITECACHE
Until it is fixed, I wouldn't even consider using ZFS on USB storage.
Even so, not all bridge boards (Firewire included) implement this
command. Unless you can verify that it functions correctly, it is
sa
2007/2/12, Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Chris Csanady wrote:
> This is true for NCQ with SATA, but SCSI also supports ordered tags,
> so it should not be necessary.
>
> At least, that is my understanding.
Except that ZFS doesn't talk SCSI, it t
2007/2/12, Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Peter Schuller wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Often fsync() is used not because one cares that some piece of data is on
> stable storage, but because one wants to ensure the subsequent I/O operations
> are performed after previous I/O opera
2007/1/19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> "ACHI SATA ... probably look at Intel boards instead."
Whats ACHI ? I didnt see anything useful on google or wikipedia ... is it a
chipset ? The issue I take with intel is there chips are either grossly
power hungry/hot (anything pre-pentium M
2007/1/18, . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2. What consumer level SATAII chipsets work. 4-ports onboard is fine for now
since I can always add a card later. I will need at least four ports to start.
pci-e cards are highly preferred since pci-x is expensive and going to become
rarer. (mark my words)
S
Thank you all for the very quick and informative responses. If it
happens again, I will try to get a core out of it.
Chris
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I have experienced two hangs so far with snv_51. I was running snv_46
until recently, and it was rock solid, as were earlier builds.
Is there a way for me to force a panic? It is an x86 machine, with
only a serial console.
Chris
___
zfs-discuss maili
On 11/14/06, Rainer Heilke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This makes sense for the most part (and yes, I think it should be done by the
file system, not a manual grovelling through vdev labels).
I agree, this should be done with a new command, as has been
suggested. However,
what I was suggesting
On 11/14/06, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Rainer,
Tuesday, November 14, 2006, 4:43:32 AM, you wrote:
RH> Sorry for the delay...
RH> No, it doesn't. The format command shows the drive, but zpool
RH> import does not find any pools. I've also used the detached bad
RH> SATA dr
On 11/11/06, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
CC> The manual page for zpool offline indicates that no further attempts
CC> are made to read or write the device, so the data should still be
CC> there. While it does not elaborate on the result of a zpool detach, I
CC> would expect it to
On 11/11/06, Rainer Heilke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nope. I get "no pools available to import". I think that detaching the drive
cleared any pool information/headers on the drive, which is why I can't figure out a way
to get the data/pool back.
Did you also export the original pool before y
On 10/12/06, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
well, it's an SiS 960 board, and it appears my only option to turn off probing
of the drives is to enable RAID mode (which makes them inacessable by the OS)
I think the option is in the standard CMOS setup section, and allows you
to set
On 10/11/06, John Sonnenschein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As it turns out now, something about the drive is causing the machine to hang
on POST. It boots fine if the drive isn't connected, and if I hot plug the
drive after the machine boots, it works fine, but the computer simply will not
boo
On 9/26/06, Richard Elling - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Csanady wrote:
> What I have observed with the iosnoop dtrace script is that the
> first disks aggregate the single block writes, while the last disk(s)
> are forced to do numerous writes every other sector. If y
I believe I have tracked down the problem discussed in the "low
disk performance thread." It seems that an alignment issue will
cause small file/block performance to be abysmal on a RAID-Z.
metaslab_ff_alloc() seems to naturally align all allocations, and
so all blocks will be aligned to asize o
On 9/22/06, Gino Ruopolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Update ...
iostat output during "zpool scrub"
extended device statistics
device r/sw/s Mr/s Mw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b
sd34 2.0 395.20.10.6 0.0 34.8 87.7 0 100
sd3521.0 312.2
On 9/4/06, UNIX admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Solaris 10 6/06 i86pc]
I recently used a set of 6 disks in a MultiPack to create a RAIDZ volume. Then I
proceeded to do zfs set sharenfs=root=a.b.c.d:a.b.c.e space ("space" is how I
named the ZFS pool).
Is this really how you set the sharenf
On 6/26/06, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote On 06/25/06 04:12,:
> Hello Neil,
>
> Saturday, June 24, 2006, 3:46:34 PM, you wrote:
>
> NP> Chris,
>
> NP> The data will be written twice on ZFS using NFS. This is because NFS
> NP> on closing the file internally uses f
s are just stingy with their memory, but for
whatever reason, it is unfortunate for ZFS on the server.
Chris
On 6/24/06, Chris Csanady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/24/06, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The data will be written twice on ZFS using NFS. This is becau
On 6/24/06, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The data will be written twice on ZFS using NFS. This is because NFS
on closing the file internally uses fsync to cause the writes to be
committed. This causes the ZIL to immediately write the data to the intent log.
Later the data is also writt
While dd'ing to an nfs filesystem, half of the bandwidth is unaccounted
for. What dd reports amounts to almost exactly half of what zpool iostat
or iostat show; even after accounting for the overhead of the two mirrored
vdevs. Would anyone care to guess where it may be going?
(This is measured
On 5/26/06, Bart Smaalders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are two failure modes associated with disk write caches:
Failure modes aside, is there any benefit to a write cache when command
queueing is available? It seems that the primary advantage is in allowing
old ATA hardware to issue writ
35 matches
Mail list logo
