Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabyte pool?

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 06:31:11PM -0700, Marion Hakanson wrote: > rvandol...@esri.com said: > > We've come close: > > > > admin@mes-str-imgnx-p1:~$ zpool list > > NAME SIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT > > datapool 978T 298T 680T30% 1.00x ONLINE - > > syspool

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabyte pool?

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 06:09:34PM -0700, Marion Hakanson wrote: > Greetings, > > Has anyone out there built a 1-petabyte pool? I've been asked to look > into this, and was told "low performance" is fine, workload is likely > to be write-once, read-occasionally, archive storage of gene sequencing

Re: [zfs-discuss] [discuss] Hardware Recommendations: SAS2 JBODs

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:08:04PM -0500, Peter Tripp wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'm in the market for a couple of JBODs. Up until now I've been > relatively lucky with finding hardware that plays very nicely with > ZFS. All my gear currently in production uses LSI SAS controllers > (3801e, 9200-16e

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:35:45AM -0700, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson > > > > System is a 240x2TB (7200RPM) system in 20 Dell MD1200 JBODs. 16 vdevs

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:18:18AM -0700, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > I'm trying to run some IOzone benchmarking on a new system to get a > > feel for baseline performance. > > Unfortunately, benchmarking with IOzon

Re: [zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:21:05AM -0700, Gary Driggs wrote: > On May 1, 2012, at 1:41 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > Throughput: > >iozone -m -t 8 -T -r 128k -o -s 36G -R -b bigfile.xls > > > > IOPS: > >iozone -O -i 0 -i 1 -i 2 -e -+n -r 128K -s 288G

[zfs-discuss] IOzone benchmarking

I'm trying to run some IOzone benchmarking on a new system to get a feel for baseline performance. Unfortunately, the system has a lot of memory (144GB), but I have some time so am approaching my runs as follows: Throughput: iozone -m -t 8 -T -r 128k -o -s 36G -R -b bigfile.xls IOPS: ioz

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Linux vs FreeBSD

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 05:48:57AM -0700, Paul Archer wrote: > This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but > recently several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was > only acceptable for production use on FreeBSD (or Solaris, of course) > rather than Linux with Zo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Unable to allocate dma memory for extra SGL

re are two internally mounted Intel X-25E's -- these double as the rootpool and ZIL devices. There is an 80GB X-25M mounted to the expander along with the 1TB drives operating as L2ARC. > > On Jan 10, 2012, at 21:07, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > Hi all; > > > >

[zfs-discuss] Unable to allocate dma memory for extra SGL

Hi all; We have a Solaris 10 U9 x86 instance running on Silicon Mechanics / SuperMicro hardware. Occasionally under high load (ZFS scrub for example), the box becomes non-responsive (it continues to respond to ping but nothing else works -- not even the local console). Our only solution is to ha

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + Dell MD1200's - MD3200 necessary?

hey may have alterior motives of course. :) Thanks, Ray > > On 6 Jan 2012, at 01:28, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > We are looking at building a storage platform based on Dell HW + ZFS > > (likely Nexenta). > > > > Going Dell because they can provide solid HW suppo

[zfs-discuss] ZFS + Dell MD1200's - MD3200 necessary?

We are looking at building a storage platform based on Dell HW + ZFS (likely Nexenta). Going Dell because they can provide solid HW support globally. Are any of you using the MD1200 JBOD with head units *without* an MD3200 in front? We are being told that the MD1200's won't "daisy chain" unless

Re: [zfs-discuss] Resolving performance issue w/ deduplication (NexentaStor)

Thanks for you response, Richard. On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 09:52:17AM -0800, Richard Elling wrote: > On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > Hi all; > > > > We have a dev box running NexentaStor Community Edition 3.1.1 w/ 24GB > > (we don't ru

Re: [zfs-discuss] Resolving performance issue w/ deduplication (NexentaStor)

fs man page). Thanks for the pointer. Ray > > On Dec 30, 2011, at 2:03, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:59:04PM -0800, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ray Van Dolson > >> wrote: > >>> Is

Re: [zfs-discuss] Resolving performance issue w/ deduplication (NexentaStor)

On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:59:04PM -0800, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > Is there a non-disruptive way to undeduplicate everything and expunge > > the DDT? > > AFAIK, no > > >  zfs send/recv and then back perhap

[zfs-discuss] Resolving performance issue w/ deduplication (NexentaStor)

Hi all; We have a dev box running NexentaStor Community Edition 3.1.1 w/ 24GB (we don't run dedupe on production boxes -- and we do pay for Nexenta licenses on prd as well) RAM and an 8.5TB pool with deduplication enabled (1.9TB or so in use). Dedupe ratio is only 1.26x. The box has an SLC-based

[zfs-discuss] ZFS in front of MD3000i

We're setting up ZFS in front of an MD3000i (and attached MD1000 expansion trays). The rule of thumb is to let ZFS manage all of the disks, so we wanted to expose each MD3000i spindle via a JBOD mode of some sort. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the MD3000i this (though this[1] post seems to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Replacement for X25-E

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:34:09PM -0700, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Brandon High wrote: > > > > The 20GB 311 only costs ~ $100 though. The 100GB Intel 710 costs ~ $650. > > > > The 311 is a good choice for home or budget users, and it seems that > > the 710 is much bigger than i

Re: [zfs-discuss] Replacement for X25-E

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:21:26PM -0700, Brandon High wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > It seems to perform similarly to the X-25E as well (3300 IOPS for > > random writes).  Perhaps the drive can be overprovisioned as well? > > > > M

Re: [zfs-discuss] Replacement for X25-E

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:46:42PM -0700, Brandon High wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Markus Kovero > wrote: > > Hi, I was wondering do you guys have any recommendations as replacement for > > Intel X25-E as it is being EOL’d? Mainly as for log device. > > The Intel 311 seems like a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 01:38:36PM -0700, Brandon High wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL?  It's MLC based, but I > > understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up > > signi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 06:53:22PM -0700, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson > > > > For ZIL, I > > suppose we could get the 300GB drive and overco

Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:17:38PM -0700, Cooper Hubbell wrote: > Which 320 series drive are you targeting, specifically? The ~$100 > 80GB variant should perform as well as the more expensive versions if > your workload is more random from what I've seen/read. ESX NFS-attached datastore activity.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 01:10:07PM -0700, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/12/11 08:00 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL? It's MLC based, but I > > understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up > > signi

[zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?

Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL? It's MLC based, but I understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up significantly by increasing the overprovisioning to 20% (dropping usable capacity to 80%). Anyone have experience with this? Ray _

[zfs-discuss] Adjusting HPA from Solaris on Intel 320 SSD's

Is there a way to tweak the HPA (Host Protected Area) on an Intel 320 SSD using native Solaris commands? In this case, we'd like to shrink the usable space so as to improve performance per recommendation in "Intel Solid-State Drive 320 Series in Server Storage Applications" section 4.1. hdparm on

Re: [zfs-discuss] Should Intel X25-E not be used with a SAS Expander?

On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 11:39:13AM -0700, Donald Stahl wrote: > > Yup; reset storms affected us as well (we were using the X-25 series > > for ZIL/L2ARC).  Only the ZIL drives were impacted, but it was a large > > impact :) > What did you see with your reset storm? Were there log errors in > /var/a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Should Intel X25-E not be used with a SAS Expander?

On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 11:19:25AM -0700, Josh Simon wrote: > I don't believe this to be the reason since there are other SATA > (single-port) SSD drives listed as approved in that same document. > > Upon further research I found some interesting links that may point to a > potentially different

Re: [zfs-discuss] Tuning disk failure detection?

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" > > sc

Re: [zfs-discuss] Tuning disk failure detection?

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

[zfs-discuss] Tuning disk failure detection?

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

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:49:03PM -0700, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms] > > > > That's patently false.  VM images are the absolute best use-case for dedup > > outside of backup workloads.  I'm not sure who told you/where you got the > > idea that VM images are n

Re: [zfs-discuss] Permanently using hot spare?

On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 03:13:06PM -0700, TianHong Zhao wrote: > Just detach the faulty disk, then the spare will become the "normal" > disk once it's finished resilvering. > > #zfs detach > > Then you need to the new spare : > #zfs add > > There seems to be a new feature in illumos project

[zfs-discuss] Permanently using hot spare?

Have a failed drive on a ZFS pool (three RAIDZ2 vdevs, one hot spare). The hot spare kicked in and all is well. Is it possible to just make that hot spare disk -- already silvered into the pool -- as a permanent part of the pool? We could then throw in a new disk and mark it as a spare and avoid

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:51:36PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 5/4/2011 4:44 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Erik Trimble > wrote: > > On 5/4/2011 4:14 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > On Wed, May 04, 201

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:49:12PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 5/4/2011 2:54 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:29:06PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote: > >> (2) Block size: a 4k block size will yield better dedup than a 128k > >> block size, presumi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:55:55PM -0700, Brandon High wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > >        I suspect that NetApp does the following to limit their resource > > usage:   they presume the presence of some sort of cache that can be > > dedicated to the DDT (and, s

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:29:06PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 5/4/2011 9:57 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > There are a number of threads (this one[1] for example) that describe > > memory requirements for deduplication. They're pretty high. > > > > I'm

[zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

There are a number of threads (this one[1] for example) that describe memory requirements for deduplication. They're pretty high. I'm trying to get a better understanding... on our NetApps we use 4K block sizes with their post-process deduplication and get pretty good dedupe ratios for VM content

Re: [zfs-discuss] detach configured log devices?

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:33:58AM -0700, Jim Mauro wrote: > With ZFS, Solaris 10 Update 9, is it possible to > detach configured log devices from a zpool? > > I have a zpool with 3 F20 mirrors for the ZIL. They're > coming up corrupted. I want to detach them, remake > the devices and reattach the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Good SLOG devices?

On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 09:56:35AM -0800, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > a) do you need an SLOG at all? Some workloads (asynchronous ones) will > > never benefit from an SLOG. > > We're planning to use this box for CIFS/NFS, so we'll need an SLOG to > speed things up. > > > b) form factor. at l

Re: [zfs-discuss] Good SLOG devices?

On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 08:03:42AM -0800, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > Hi > > I'm running OpenSolaris 148 on a few boxes, and newer boxes are > getting installed as we speak. What would you suggest for a good SLOG > device? It seems some new PCI-E-based ones are hitting the market, > but will tho

[zfs-discuss] cfgadm MPxIO aware yet in Solaris 10 U9?

I just replaced a failing disk on one of my servers running Solaris 10 U9. The system was MPxIO enabled and I now have the old device hanging around in the cfgadm list. I understand from searching around that cfgadm may not be MPxIO aware -- at least not in Solaris 10. I see a fix was pushed to

Re: [zfs-discuss] [storage-discuss] multipath used inadvertantly?

; > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:24:20PM -0800, Torrey McMahon wrote: > >> in.mpathd is the IP multipath daemon. (Yes, it's a bit confusing that > >> mpathadm is the storage multipath admin tool. ) > >> > >> If scsi_vhci is loaded in the kernel you hav

Re: [zfs-discuss] [storage-discuss] multipath used inadvertantly?

; If scsi_vhci is loaded in the kernel you have storage multipathing > enabled. (Check with modinfo.) > > On 2/15/2011 3:53 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > I'm troubleshooting an existing Solaris 10U9 server (x86 whitebox) and > > noticed its device names are extremely hair

[zfs-discuss] multipath used inadvertantly?

I'm troubleshooting an existing Solaris 10U9 server (x86 whitebox) and noticed its device names are extremely hair -- very similar to the multipath device names: c0t5000C50026F8ACAAd0, etc, etc. mpathadm seems to confirm: # mpathadm list lu /dev/rdsk/c0t50015179591CE0C1d0s2

Re: [zfs-discuss] Fwd: native ZFS on Linux

x project lacks currently. Ray > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: "C. Bergström" > Date: 2011/2/12 > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] native ZFS on Linux > To: > Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > > > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > > On S

Re: [zfs-discuss] native ZFS on Linux

On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 09:18:26AM -0800, David E. Anderson wrote: > I see that Pinguy OS, an uber-Ubuntu o/s, includes native ZFS support. > Any pointers to more info on this? Probably using this[1]. Ray [1] http://kqstor.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing

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] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 05:43:35AM -0800, Jabbar wrote: > Hello, > > I was thinking of buying a couple of SSD's until I found out that Trim is only > supported with SATA drives. I'm not sure if TRIM will work with ZFS. I was > concerned that with trim support the SSD life and write throughput wil

Re: [zfs-discuss] Moving rpool disks

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:13:42AM -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > We need to move the disks comprising our mirrored rpool on a Solaris 10 > U9 x86_64 (not SPARC) system. > > We'll be relocating both drives to a different controller in the same > system (should go from c1*

[zfs-discuss] Moving rpool disks

We need to move the disks comprising our mirrored rpool on a Solaris 10 U9 x86_64 (not SPARC) system. We'll be relocating both drives to a different controller in the same system (should go from c1* to c0*). We're curious as to what the best way is to go about this? We'd love to be able to just

Re: [zfs-discuss] X4540 RIP

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:51:02PM -0800, matthew patton wrote: > > I have this with 36 2TB drives (and 2 separate boot drives). > > > > http://www.colfax-intl.com/jlrid/SpotLight_more_Acc.asp?L=134&S=58&B=2267 > > That's just a Supermicro SC847. > > http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/

[zfs-discuss] NFS/SATA lockups (svc_cots_kdup no slots free & sata port time out)

I have a Solaris 10 U8 box (142901-14) running as an NFS server with a 23 disk zpool behind it (three RAIDZ2 vdevs). We have a single Intel X-25E SSD operating as an slog ZIL device attached to a SATA port on this machine's motherboard. The rest of the drives are in a hot-swap enclosure. Infrequ

Re: [zfs-discuss] Multiple SLOG devices per pool

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 08:49:00PM -0700, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson > > > > I have a pool with a single SLOG device rated at Y iops. > > >

[zfs-discuss] Multiple SLOG devices per pool

I have a pool with a single SLOG device rated at Y iops. If I add a second (non-mirrored) SLOG device also rated at Y iops will my zpool now theoretically be able to handle 2Y iops? Or close to that? Thanks, Ray ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Bursty writes - why?

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:09:44PM -0700, Eff Norwood wrote: > The NFS client in this case was VMWare ESXi 4.1 release build. What > happened is that the file uploader behavior was changed in 4.1 to > prevent I/O contention with the VM guests. That means when you go to > upload something to the dat

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS disk space monitoring with SNMP

On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 03:00:16PM -0700, Volker A. Brandt wrote: > Hello Ray, hello list! > > > > Running on Solaris 10 U9 here. How do most of you monitor disk usage / > > capacity on your large zpools remotely via SNMP tools? > > > > Net SNMP seems to be using a 32-bit unsigned integer (based

[zfs-discuss] ZFS disk space monitoring with SNMP

Hey folks; Running on Solaris 10 U9 here. How do most of you monitor disk usage / capacity on your large zpools remotely via SNMP tools? Net SNMP seems to be using a 32-bit unsigned integer (based on the MIB) for hrStorageSize and friends, and thus we're not able to get accurate numbers for size

Re: [zfs-discuss] SCSI write retry errors on ZIL SSD drives...

Just wanted to post a quick follow-up to this. Original thread is here[1] -- not quoted for brevity. Andrew Gabriel suggested[2] that this could possibly be some workload triggered issue. We wanted to rule out a driver problem and so we tested various configurations under Solaris 10U9 and OpenSo

[zfs-discuss] Best practice for Sol10U9 ZIL -- mirrored or not?

Best practice in Solaris 10 U8 and older was to use a mirrored ZIL. With the ability to remove slog devices in Solaris 10 U9, we're thinking we may get more bang for our buck to use two slog devices for improved IOPS performance instead of needing the redundancy so much. Any thoughts on this? If

Re: [zfs-discuss] dedicated ZIL/L2ARC

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:59:07AM -0700, Wolfraider wrote: > We are looking into the possibility of adding a dedicated ZIL and/or > L2ARC devices to our pool. We are looking into getting 4 – 32GB > Intel X25-E SSD drives. Would this be a good solution to slow write > speeds? We are currently shari

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance issue

On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 01:20:58PM -0700, Dr. Martin Mundschenk wrote: > Hi! > > I searched the web for hours, trying to solve the NFS/ZFS low > performance issue on my just setup OSOL box (snv134). The problem is > discussed in many threads but I've found no solution. > > On a nfs shared volume

Re: [zfs-discuss] 4k block alignment question (X-25E)

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:47:49PM -0700, Brandon High wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > I want to "fix" (as much as is possible) a misalignment issue with an > > X-25E that I am using for both OS and as an slog device. > > It

Re: [zfs-discuss] 4k block alignment question (X-25E)

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:11:32PM -0700, Christopher George wrote: > > I was wondering if anyone had a benchmarking showing this alignment > > mattered on the latest SSDs. My guess is no, but I have no data. > > I don't believe there can be any doubt whether a Flash based SSD (tier1 > or not)

Re: [zfs-discuss] 4k block alignment question (X-25E)

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 04:12:48PM -0700, Edho P Arief wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > In any case -- any thoughts on whether or not I'll be helping anything > > if I change my slog slice starting cylinder to be 4k aligned even >

Re: [zfs-discuss] 4k block alignment question (X-25E)

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 03:56:42PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > comment below... > > On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 03:37:52PM -0700, Eric D. Mudama wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 30 at 15:05, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] 4k block alignment question (X-25E)

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 03:37:52PM -0700, Eric D. Mudama wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30 at 15:05, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > >I want to "fix" (as much as is possible) a misalignment issue with an > >X-25E that I am using for both OS and as an slog device. > > > >This is

[zfs-discuss] 4k block alignment question (X-25E)

I want to "fix" (as much as is possible) a misalignment issue with an X-25E that I am using for both OS and as an slog device. This is on x86 hardware running Solaris 10U8. Partition table looks as follows: Part TagFlag CylindersSizeBlocks 0 rootwm

Re: [zfs-discuss] VM's on ZFS - 7210

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 05:50:38AM -0700, Eff Norwood wrote: > I can't think of an easy way to measure pages that have not been consumed > since it's really an SSD controller function which is obfuscated from the OS, > and add the variable of over provisioning on top of that. If anyone would > l

Re: [zfs-discuss] VM's on ZFS - 7210

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 03:51:39PM -0700, Eff Norwood wrote: > By all means please try it to validate it yourself and post your > results from hour one, day one and week one. In a ZIL use case, > although the data set is small it is always writing a small ever > changing (from the SSDs perspective)

Re: [zfs-discuss] VM's on ZFS - 7210

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:22:15PM -0700, John wrote: > Wouldn't it be possible to saturate the SSD ZIL with enough > backlogged sync writes? > > What I mean is, doesn't the ZIL eventually need to make it to the > pool, and if the pool as a whole (spinning disks) can't keep up with > 30+ vm's of

Re: [zfs-discuss] VM's on ZFS - 7210

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:46:42PM -0700, Mark wrote: > It does, its on a pair of large APC's. > > Right now we're using NFS for our ESX Servers. The only iSCSI LUN's > I have are mounted inside a couple Windows VM's. I'd have to > migrate all our VM's to iSCSI, which I'm willing to do if it wo

Re: [zfs-discuss] VM's on ZFS - 7210

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:57:17AM -0700, Marion Hakanson wrote: > markwo...@yahoo.com said: > > So the question is with a proper ZIL SSD from SUN, and a RAID10... would I > > be > > able to support all the VM's or would it still be pushing the limits a 44 > > disk pool? > > If it weren't a clos

Re: [zfs-discuss] VM's on ZFS - 7210

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 05:51:38AM -0700, David Magda wrote: > On Fri, August 27, 2010 08:46, Eff Norwood wrote: > > Saso is correct - ESX/i always uses F_SYNC for all writes and that is for > > sure your performance killer. Do a snoop | grep sync and you'll see the > > sync write calls from VMWare

Re: [zfs-discuss] SCSI write retry errors on ZIL SSD drives...

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:47:38AM -0700, Andreas Grüninger wrote: > Ray > > Supermicro does not support the use of SSDs behind an expander. > > You must put the SSD in the head or use an interposer card see here: > http://www.lsi.com/storage_home/products_home/standard_product_ics/sas_sata_proto

Re: [zfs-discuss] SCSI write retry errors on ZIL SSD drives...

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:46:23PM -0700, Andrew Gabriel wrote: > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > I posted a thread on this once long ago[1] -- but we're still fighting > > with this problem and I wanted to throw it out here again. > > > > All of our hardware is fr

[zfs-discuss] SCSI write retry errors on ZIL SSD drives...

I posted a thread on this once long ago[1] -- but we're still fighting with this problem and I wanted to throw it out here again. All of our hardware is from Silicon Mechanics (SuperMicro chassis and motherboards). Up until now, all of the hardware has had a single 24-disk expander / backplane --

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:15:12AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote: > Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that > states if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he > was a part of for five years. > > The "business motivation" would be to set the competition back

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:08:52AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > "C. Bergström" wrote: > > > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > "C. Bergström" wrote: > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed > > > BTRFS. > > No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much > > already to be available under anything,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:58:20AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 08:52 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > > > > > > I absolut

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:55:49AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote: > Why would they obviously want that? When the project started, they > were competing with Sun. They now own Solaris; they no longer have a > need to produce a competing product. I would be EXTREMELY surprised > to see Oracle continue to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > > > dual-licensed BTRFS. > > > > Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux &

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote: > No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no > longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That > is not true. Anyone ELSE who uses the GPL code must release > modifications if they wish to distribute

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:01:07PM -0700, "C. Bergström" wrote: > Gary Mills wrote: > > If this information is correct, > > > > http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043 > > > > further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors. > > Opensolaris will become the interna

Re: [zfs-discuss] Adding ZIL to pool questions

On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 12:36:28PM -0700, Gregory Gee wrote: > Jim, that ACARD looks really nice, but out of the price range for a > home server. > > Edward, disabling ZIL might be ok, but let me characterize what my > home server does and tell me if disabling ZIL is ok. > > My home OpenSolaris s

Re: [zfs-discuss] Using a zvol from your rpool as zil for another zpool

On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 08:18:48AM -0700, Erik Ableson wrote: > Le 2 juil. 2010 à 16:30, Ray Van Dolson a écrit : > > > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:40:26AM -0700, Ben Taylor wrote: > >>> We have a server with a couple X-25E's and a bunch of larger SATA > >>&

Re: [zfs-discuss] Using a zvol from your rpool as zil for another zpool

On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:40:26AM -0700, Ben Taylor wrote: > > We have a server with a couple X-25E's and a bunch of > > larger SATA > > disks. > > > > To save space, we want to install Solaris 10 (our > > install is only about > > 1.4GB) to the X-25E's and use the remaining space on > > the SSD'

Re: [zfs-discuss] Using a zvol from your rpool as zil for another zpool

> However, SVM+UFS is more annoying to work with as far as LiveUpgrade is > concerned. We'd love to use a ZFS root, but that requires that the > entire SSD be dedicated as an rpool leaving no space for ZIL. Or does > it? > > It appears that we could do a: > > # zfs create -V 24G rpool/zil >

[zfs-discuss] Using a zvol from your rpool as zil for another zpool

We have a server with a couple X-25E's and a bunch of larger SATA disks. To save space, we want to install Solaris 10 (our install is only about 1.4GB) to the X-25E's and use the remaining space on the SSD's for ZIL attached to a zpool created from the SATA drives. Currently we do this by install

Re: [zfs-discuss] What happens when unmirrored ZIL log device is removed ungracefully

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:47:15AM -0700, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: Arne Jansen [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net] > > > > Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > > Due to recent experiences, and discussion on this list, my colleague > > and > > > I performed some tests: > > > > > > Using solaris 10, fully u

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Devena line of enterprise SSD

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 09:54:59AM -0700, Ragnar Sundblad wrote: > > On 17 jun 2010, at 18.17, Richard Jahnel wrote: > > > The EX specs page does list the supercap > > > > The pro specs page does not. > > They do for both on the Specifications tab on the web page: >

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Devena line of enterprise SSD

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 09:42:44AM -0700, F. Wessels wrote: > I just lookup it up again and as far as i can see the super cap is > present in the MLC version as well as the SLC Very nice. A pair of the 50GB SLC model would be great for ZIL. Might continue to stick with the X-25M for L2ARC thoug

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication and ISO files

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 01:10:44PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 01:03:32PM -0700, Brandon High wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > Makes sense.  So, as someone else suggested, decreasing my block size >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication and ISO files

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 01:03:32PM -0700, Brandon High wrote: > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > Makes sense.  So, as someone else suggested, decreasing my block size > > may improve the deduplication ratio. > > It might. It might make your

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication and ISO files

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 11:16:40AM -0700, Brandon High wrote: > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > The ISO's I'm testing with are the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the > > RHEL5 DVD ISO's.  While both have their differences, they do contain a &

[zfs-discuss] Deduplication and ISO files

I'm running zpool version 23 (via ZFS fuse on Linux) and have a zpool with deduplication turned on. I am testing how well deduplication will work for the storage of many, similar ISO files and so far am seeing unexpected results (or perhaps my expectations are wrong). The ISO's I'm testing with a

Re: [zfs-discuss] New SSD options

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:30:20AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > This thread has grown giant, so apologies for screwing up threading > with an out of place reply. :) > > So, as far as SF-1500 based SSD's, the only ones currently in existence > are the Vertex 2 LE and Ver

Re: [zfs-discuss] New SSD options

This thread has grown giant, so apologies for screwing up threading with an out of place reply. :) So, as far as SF-1500 based SSD's, the only ones currently in existence are the Vertex 2 LE and Vertex 2 EX, correct (I understand the Vertex 2 Pro was never mass produced)? Both of these are based

  1   2   >