A fix for this should be integrated shortly.
Thanks,
George
Michael Schuster - Sun Microsystems wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Michael,
Wednesday, August 23, 2006, 12:49:28 PM, you wrote:
MSSM> Roch wrote:
MSSM> I sent this output offline to Roch, here's the essential ones
and (firs
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Michael,
Wednesday, August 23, 2006, 12:49:28 PM, you wrote:
MSSM> Roch wrote:
MSSM> I sent this output offline to Roch, here's the essential ones and (first)
MSSM> his reply:
So it looks like this:
6421427 netra x1 slagged by NFS over ZFS leading to long spin
Hello Michael,
Wednesday, August 23, 2006, 12:49:28 PM, you wrote:
MSSM> Roch wrote:
MSSM> I sent this output offline to Roch, here's the essential ones and (first)
MSSM> his reply:
>> So it looks like this:
>>
>> 6421427 netra x1 slagged by NFS over ZFS leading to long spins in the ATA
>> d
Roch wrote:
Ok lets get a profile then:
dtrace -n '[EMAIL PROTECTED](20)]=count()} END{trunc(@,20)}'
I sent this output offline to Roch, here's the essential ones and (first)
his reply:
So it looks like this:
6421427 netra x1 slagged by NFS over ZFS leading to long spins in the A
Michael Schuster - Sun Microsystems writes:
> Roch wrote:
> > Michael Schuster writes:
> > > IHAC who is using a very similar test (cp -pr /zpool1/Studio11
> > > /zpool1/Studio11.copy) and is seeing behaviour similar to what we've
> > > seen described here; BUT since he's using a single-C
Roch wrote:
Michael Schuster writes:
> IHAC who is using a very similar test (cp -pr /zpool1/Studio11
> /zpool1/Studio11.copy) and is seeing behaviour similar to what we've
> seen described here; BUT since he's using a single-CPU box (SunBlade
> 1500) and has a single disk in his pool, every
Michael Schuster writes:
> IHAC who is using a very similar test (cp -pr /zpool1/Studio11
> /zpool1/Studio11.copy) and is seeing behaviour similar to what we've
> seen described here; BUT since he's using a single-CPU box (SunBlade
> 1500) and has a single disk in his pool, every time the CPU
IHAC who is using a very similar test (cp -pr /zpool1/Studio11
/zpool1/Studio11.copy) and is seeing behaviour similar to what we've seen
described here; BUT since he's using a single-CPU box (SunBlade 1500) and has a
single disk in his pool, every time the CPU goes into "100%-mode", interactive
Bob Evans writes:
> One last tidbit, for what it is worth. Rather than watch top, I ran
> xcpustate. It seems that just as the writes pause, the cpu looks like
> it hits 100% (or very close), then it falls back down to its lower
> level.
>
> I'm still getting used to Solaris 10 as well,
One last tidbit, for what it is worth. Rather than watch top, I ran xcpustate.
It seems that just as the writes pause, the cpu looks like it hits 100% (or
very close), then it falls back down to its lower level.
I'm still getting used to Solaris 10 as well, so if you have a DTrace script
you'
Bob Evans writes:
> I'm starting simple, there is no app.
>
> I have a 10GB file (called foo) on the internal FC drive, I did a zfs create
> raidz bar
> then ran "cp foo /bar/", so there is no cpu activity due to an app.
>
> As a test case, this took 7 min 30 sec to copy to the zfs
As added information, top reports that "cp" is using about 25% of the single
cpu. There are no other apps running.
Bob
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mai
I'm starting simple, there is no app.
I have a 10GB file (called foo) on the internal FC drive, I did a zfs create
raidz bar
then ran "cp foo /bar/", so there is no cpu activity due to an app.
As a test case, this took 7 min 30 sec to copy to the zfs partition. I removed
the pool, formatt
13 matches
Mail list logo
