So I can manage the file system mounts/automounts using the legacy option ,
but I can't manage the auto-import of the pools . Or I should delete the
zpool.cache file during boot .
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing lis
> The hard part is getting a set of simple
> requirements. As you go into
> more complex data center environments you get hit
> with older Solaris
> revs, other OSs, SOX compliance issues, etc. etc.
> etc. The world where
> most of us seem to be playing with ZFS is on the
> lower end of the
> c
Hi,
I deployed ZFS on our mailserver recently, hoping for eternal peace after
running on UFS and moving files witch each TB added.
It is mailserver - it's mdirs are on ZFS pool:
capacity operationsbandwidth
poolused avail read w
Lieven De Geyndt wrote:
So I can manage the file system mounts/automounts using the legacy option
, but I can't manage the auto-import of the pools . Or I should delete
the zpool.cache file during boot .
Doesn't this come back to the problem which is self-induced, namely
that they are trying "
On September 7, 2006 6:55:48 PM +1000 "James C. McPherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Doesn't this come back to the problem which is self-induced, namely
that they are trying "poor man's cluster" ??
If you want cluster functionality then pay for a proper solution.
If you can't afford a proper s
I know this is not supported . But we try to build a safe configuration , till
zfs is supported in Sun cluster .
The customer did order SunCluster , but needs a workarround till the release
date .
And I think it must be possible to setup .
This message posted from opensolaris.org
> We are trying to obtain a mutex that is currently held
> by another thread trying to get memory.
Hmm, reminds me a bit on the zvol swap hang I got
some time ago:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=11956&tstart=150
I guess if the other thead is stuck trying to get memory, then
Lieven De Geyndt wrote:
I know this is not supported . But we try to build a safe configuration,
till zfs is supported in Sun cluster. The customer did order SunCluster,
but needs a workarround till the release date . And I think it must be
possible to setup .
So build them a configuration whic
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 09:54:25AM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Theo Bongers wrote:
Please can anyone tell me how to handle with a LUN that is expanded (on a
RAID array or SAN storage)? and grow the filesystem without data-loss?
How does ZFS looks at the volume. In other wor
Hello James,
Thursday, September 7, 2006, 1:44:48 PM, you wrote:
JCM> Lieven De Geyndt wrote:
>> I know this is not supported . But we try to build a safe configuration,
>> till zfs is supported in Sun cluster. The customer did order SunCluster,
>> but needs a workarround till the release date .
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello James,
Thursday, September 7, 2006, 1:44:48 PM, you wrote:
JCM> Lieven De Geyndt wrote:
I know this is not supported . But we try to build a safe configuration,
till zfs is supported in Sun cluster. The customer did order SunCluster,
but needs a workarround till t
Hi,
This same dump has now shown up as a P1 pts-kernel esc of which I am the
lucky owner.
I noticed that arc.size is far smaller than the sum of all zio... caches.
This of course might be caused by :
6456888 zpool scrubbing leads to memory exhaustion and system hang
Except that there is no
Jürgen Keil wrote:
We are trying to obtain a mutex that is currently held
by another thread trying to get memory.
Hmm, reminds me a bit on the zvol swap hang I got
some time ago:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=11956&tstart=150
I guess if the other thead is stuck trying
Hello Mark,
Thursday, September 7, 2006, 12:32:32 AM, you wrote:
MM> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Mark Maybee wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>>
> ::dnlc!wc
1048545 3145811 76522461
>>> Well, that explains half your problem... and maybe a
Ivan,
What mail clients use your mail server? You may be seeing the
effects of:
6440499 zil should avoid txg_wait_synced() and use dmu_sync() to issue
parallel IOs when fsyncing
This bug was fixed in nevada build 43, and I don't think made it into
s10 update 2. It will, of course, be in upd
Hi, thanks for reply.
The load is like this:
20 msg/s incoming
400 simult IMAP connections ( select, search, fetch-env )
60 new websessions / s
100 simult POP3
Is there a way to get that "patch" to try? Thinks are really getting worse down
here :-(
It might make sense, since the mail server
Nicolas Dorfsman wrote:
The hard part is getting a set of simple
requirements. As you go into
more complex data center environments you get hit
with older Solaris
revs, other OSs, SOX compliance issues, etc. etc.
etc. The world where
most of us seem to be playing with ZFS is on the
lower end o
> Lieven De Geyndt wrote:
> > So I can manage the file system mounts/automounts using the legacy option
> > , but I can't manage the auto-import of the pools . Or I should delete
> > the zpool.cache file during boot .
>
> Doesn't this come back to the problem which is self-induced, namely
> that t
Ivan Debnár wrote:
Hi,
I deployed ZFS on our mailserver recently, hoping for eternal peace after
running on UFS and moving files witch each TB added.
It is mailserver - it's mdirs are on ZFS pool:
capacity operationsbandwidth
poolus
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Raid calculations take CPU time but I haven't seen numbers on ZFS usage.
SVM is known for using a fair bit of CPU when performing R5 calculations
and I'm sure other OS have the same issue. EMC used to go around saying
that offloading raid calculations to their storage arra
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:32:18AM -0700, Darren Dunham wrote:
>
> I know that VxVM stores the "autoimport" information on the disk
> itself. It sounds like ZFS doesn't and it's only in the cache (is this
> correct?)
I'm not sure what 'autoimport' is, but ZFS always stores enough
information on
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Raid calculations take CPU time but I haven't seen numbers on ZFS
usage. SVM is known for using a fair bit of CPU when performing R5
calculations and I'm sure other OS have the same issue. EMC used to go
around saying that offloading raid calcu
On 9/7/06, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nicolas Dorfsman wrote:
>> The hard part is getting a set of simple
>> requirements. As you go into
>> more complex data center environments you get hit
>> with older Solaris
>> revs, other OSs, SOX compliance issues, etc. etc.
>> etc. The worl
Philippe Magerus - SUN Service - Luxembourg wrote:
there should be a tunable for max number of cached znodes/dnodes as
there is in other file systems.
...
As for arc.c_max, it should be settable via /etc/system.
No, there should not be tunables. The system should simply work. We
need to di
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is the case where I don't understand Sun's politics at all: Sun
doesn't offer really cheap JBOD which can be bought just for ZFS. And
don't even tell me about 3310/3320 JBODs - they are horrible expansive :-(
Yep, multipacks are EOL for some time now -- killed by b
Hi, thanks for respose.
As this is close-source mailserver (CommuniGate pro), I can't say 100% answer,
but the writes that I see that take too much time (15-30secs) are writes from
temp queue to final storage, and from my understanding, they are sync so the
queue manager can guarantee they are
The bigger problem with system utilization for software RAID is the cache, not
the CPU cycles proper. Simply preparing to write 1 MB of data will flush half
of a 2 MB L2 cache. This hurts overall system performance far more than the few
microseconds that XORing the data takes.
(A similar effect
On September 7, 2006 11:50:43 AM -0700 Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 11:32:18AM -0700, Darren Dunham wrote:
Lets imagine that I lose a motherboard on a SAN host and it crashes. To
get things going I import the pool on another host and run the apps
while I repa
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:09:47PM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
>
> That zfs needs to address.
>
> What if I simply lose power to one of the hosts, and then power is restored?
Then use a layered clustering product - that's what this is for. For
example, SunCluster doesn't use the cache file in th
> > I know that VxVM stores the "autoimport" information on the disk
> > itself. It sounds like ZFS doesn't and it's only in the cache (is this
> > correct?)
>
> I'm not sure what 'autoimport' is, but ZFS always stores enough
> information on the disks to open the pool, provided all the devices
Ivan Debnár wrote:
Hi, thanks for respose.
As this is close-source mailserver (CommuniGate pro), I can't say 100% answer,
but the writes that I see that take too much time (15-30secs) are writes from
temp queue to final storage, and from my understanding, they are sync so the
queue manager c
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:52:33PM -0700, Darren Dunham wrote:
>
> What are the problems that you see with that check? It appears similar
> to what VxVM has been using (although they do not use the `hostid` as
> the field), and that appears to have worked well in most cases.
>
> I don't know wha
Darren Dunham wrote:
I know that VxVM stores the "autoimport" information on the disk
itself. It sounds like ZFS doesn't and it's only in the cache (is this
correct?)
I'm not sure what 'autoimport' is, but ZFS always stores enough
information on the disks to open the pool, provided al
A determined administrator can always get around any checks and cause problems.
We should do our very best to prevent data loss, though! This case is
particularly bad since simply booting a machine can permanently damage the pool.
And why would we want a pool imported on another host, or not mar
> And why would we want a pool imported on another host, or not marked
> as belonging to this host, to show up as faulted? That seems an odd
> use of the word. Unavailable, perhaps, but not faulted.
It certainly changes some semantics...
In a UFS/VxVM world, I still have filesystems referenced i
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 06:07:40PM -0700, Anton B. Rang wrote:
>
> And why would we want a pool imported on another host, or not marked
> as belonging to this host, to show up as faulted? That seems an odd
> use of the word. Unavailable, perhaps, but not faulted.
>
That's FMA terminology, and
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 06:31:30PM -0700, Darren Dunham wrote:
>
> It certainly changes some semantics...
>
> In a UFS/VxVM world, I still have filesystems referenced in /etc/vfstab.
> I might expect (although have seen counterexamples), that if my VxVM
> group doesn't autoimport, then obviously
37 matches
Mail list logo
