[zfs-discuss] About bug 6486493 (ZFS boot incompatible with the SATA framework)

I would like to test ZFS boot on my home server, but according to bug 6486493 ZFS boot cannot be used if the disks are attached to a SATA controller handled by a driver using the new SATA framework (which is my case: driver si3124). I have never heard of someone having successfully used ZFS boot w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

Rayson Ho writes: > 1) Modern DBMSs cache database pages in their own buffer pool because > it is less expensive than to access data from the OS. (IIRC, MySQL's > MyISAM is the only one that relies on the FS cache, but a lot of MySQL > sites use INNODB which has its own buffer pool) > The D

[zfs-discuss] future ZFS Boot and ZFS "copies"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I know that first release of ZFS boot will be support single disk and mirroring configurations. With ZFS "copies" support in Solaris 10 U5 (I hope), I was wondering about breaking my current mirror and using both disks in stripe mode, protecting the cr

Re: [zfs-discuss] future ZFS Boot and ZFS "copies"

Jesus Cea wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > I know that first release of ZFS boot will be support single disk and > mirroring configurations. With ZFS "copies" support in Solaris 10 U5 (I > hope), I was wondering about breaking my current mirror and using both > disks in

Re: [zfs-discuss] future ZFS Boot and ZFS "copies"

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Darren J Moffat wrote: > Why would you do that when it would reduce your protection and ZFS boot > can boot from a mirror anyway. I guess ditto blocks would be protection enough, since the data would be duplicated between both disks. Of course, backu

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

On 10/3/07, Roch - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rayson Ho writes: > > > 1) Modern DBMSs cache database pages in their own buffer pool because > > it is less expensive than to access data from the OS. (IIRC, MySQL's > > MyISAM is the only one that relies on the FS cache, but a lot of MySQL >

Re: [zfs-discuss] future ZFS Boot and ZFS "copies"

Jesus Cea wrote: > Darren J Moffat wrote: > > Why would you do that when it would reduce your protection > and ZFS boot > > can boot from a mirror anyway. > > I guess ditto blocks would be protection enough, since the > data would be > duplicated between both disks. Of course, backups are you

Re: [zfs-discuss] future ZFS Boot and ZFS "copies"

Moore, Joe wrote: > It would be really nice if there was some sort of > enforced-ditto-separation (fail w/ device full if unable to satisfy) but > that doesn't exist currently. How would that be different to a mirror ? I guess it is different to a mirror because only some datasets in the pool wo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

Matty writes: > On 10/3/07, Roch - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rayson Ho writes: > > > > > 1) Modern DBMSs cache database pages in their own buffer pool because > > > it is less expensive than to access data from the OS. (IIRC, MySQL's > > > MyISAM is the only one that relies on th

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs-discuss Digest, Vol 24, Issue 5

Richard, Having read your blog regarding the copies feature, do you have an opinion on whether mirroring or copies are better for a SAN situation? It strikes me that since we're discussing SAN and not local physical disk, that for a system needing 100GB of usable storage (size chosen for roun

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:42:53AM +0200, Roch - PAE wrote: > Rayson Ho writes: > > 2) Also, direct I/O is faster because it avoid double buffering. > > A piece of data can be in one buffer, 2 buffers, 3 > buffers. That says nothing about performance. More below. > > So I guess you mean DIO i

[zfs-discuss] replacing a device with itself doesn't work

Hi, I hope someone can help cos ATM zfs' logic seems a little askew. I just swapped a failing 200gb drive that was one half of a 400gb gstripe device which I was using as one of the devices in a 3 device raidz1. When the OS came back up after the drive had been changed, the necessary metadata was

[zfs-discuss] Stange zfs mirror behavarior

Hi, we are running a v240 with a zfs pool mirror onto two 3310 (SCSI). During redundancy test, when offlining one 3310.. all zfs data are unsable. - zpool hang without displaying any info - trying to read filesystem hang the command (df,ls,...) - /var/log/messages keep sending error for the fautl

Re: [zfs-discuss] About bug 6486493 (ZFS boot incompatible with the SATA framework)

This bug was rendered moot via 6528732 in build snv_68 (and s10_u5). We now store physical devices paths with the vnodes, so even though the SATA framework doesn't correctly support open by devid in early boot, we can fallback to the device path just fine. ZFS root works great on thumper, which u

[zfs-discuss] Interim way to pfinstall into zfs root?

Has anyone figured out a way to make pfinstall work sufficiently to just pkgadd all the packages in a DVD (or netinstall) image into a new ZFS root? I have a ZFS root pool and an initial root FS that was copied in from a cpio archive of a previous UFS root. That much works great. BFU works for th

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

On 10/3/07, Roch - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We do not retain 2 copies of the same data. > > If the DB cache is made large enough to consume most of memory, > the ZFS copy will quickly be evicted to stage other I/Os on > their way to the DB cache. > > What problem does that pose ? Hi Roch,

Re: [zfs-discuss] replacing a device with itself doesn't work

MP wrote: > Hi, > I hope someone can help cos ATM zfs' logic seems a little askew. > I just swapped a failing 200gb drive that was one half of a 400gb gstripe > device which I was using as one of the devices in a 3 device raidz1. When the > OS came back up after the drive had been changed, the ne

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

On Oct 3, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Roch - PAE wrote: > If the DB cache is made large enough to consume most of memory, > the ZFS copy will quickly be evicted to stage other I/Os on > their way to the DB cache. > > What problem does that pose ? Personally, I'm still not completely sold on the performanc

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

Hey Roch - > We do not retain 2 copies of the same data. > > If the DB cache is made large enough to consume most of memory, > the ZFS copy will quickly be evicted to stage other I/Os on > their way to the DB cache. > > What problem does that pose ? Can't answer that question empirically, because

Re: [zfs-discuss] replacing a device with itself doesn't work

more below... MP wrote: > On 03/10/2007, *Richard Elling* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Yes. From the fine manual on zpool: > zpool replace [-f] pool old_device [new_device] > > Replaces old_device with new_device. This is equivalent >

Re: [zfs-discuss] replacing a device with itself doesn't work

On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:10:19PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > > - > > > > # zpool scrub tank > > # zpool status -v tank > > pool: tank > > state: ONLINE > > status: One or more devices could not be used because the label is > > missing or > > invalid. Sufficient replic

Re: [zfs-discuss] replacing a device with itself doesn't work

I think I might have run into the same problem. At the time I assumed I was doing something wrong, but... I made a b72 raidz out of three new 1gb virtual disks in vmware. I shut the vm off, replaced one of the disks with a new 1.5gb virtual disk. No matter what command I tried, I couldn't ge

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

Rayson Ho wrote: > On 10/3/07, Roch - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> We do not retain 2 copies of the same data. >> >> If the DB cache is made large enough to consume most of memory, >> the ZFS copy will quickly be evicted to stage other I/Os on >> their way to the DB cache. >> >> What problem d

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

On Oct 3, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > Slightly off-topic, in looking at some field data this morning > (looking > for something completely unrelated) I notice that the use of directio > on UFS is declining over time. I'm not sure what that means... > hopefully > not more perform

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best option for my home file server?

Would the nv_sata driver also be used on nforce 590 sli? I found Asus M2N32 WS PRO at my hw shop which has 9 internal sata connectors. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opens

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best option for my home file server?

I believe so. The Solaris device detection tool will show the MCP version, too. http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/device_detect.html -- richard Christopher wrote: > Would the nv_sata driver also be used on nforce 590 sli? I found Asus M2N32 > WS PRO at my hw shop which has 9 internal s

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

Hi Dale, We're testing out the enhanced arc_max enforcement (track DNLC entries) using Build 72 right now. Hopefully, it will fix the memory creep, which is the only real downside to ZFS for DB work it seems to me. Frankly, of our DB loads have improved performance with ZFS. I suspect its because

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

Postgres assumes that the OS takes care of caching: "PLEASE NOTE. PostgreSQL counts a lot on the OS to cache data files and hence does not bother with duplicating its file caching effort. The shared buffers parameter assumes that OS is going to cache a lot of files and hence it is generally

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

> > Anyhow, in the case of DBs, ARC indeed becomes a vestigial organ. I'm > surprised that this is being met with skepticism considering that > Oracle highly recommends direct IO be used, and, IIRC, Oracle > performance was the main motivation to adding DIO to UFS back in > Solaris 2.6. This isn't

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

On Oct 3, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Dale Ghent wrote: > On Oct 3, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > >> Slightly off-topic, in looking at some field data this morning >> (looking >> for something completely unrelated) I notice that the use of directio >> on UFS is declining over time. I'm not sur

[zfs-discuss] When I stab myself with this knife, it hurts... But - should it kill me?

Some people are just dumb. Take me, for instance... :) Was just looking into ZFS on iscsi and doing some painful and unnatural things to my boxes and dropped a panic I was not expecting. Here is what I did. Server: (S10_u4 sparc) - zpool create usb /dev/dsk/c4t0d0s0 (on a 4gb USB stick,

Re: [zfs-discuss] When I stab myself with this knife, it hurts... But - should it kill me?

On 04/10/2007, Nathan Kroenert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Client A > - import pool make couple-o-changes > > Client B > - import pool -f (heh) > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie ^Mpanic[cpu0]/thread=ff0002b51c80: > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 603766 kern.notice] assertion > failed: dmu_r

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

Would it be easier to ... 1) Change ZFS code to enable a sort of directIO emulation and then run various tests... or 2) Use Sun's performance team, which have all the experience in the world when it comes to performing benchmarks on Solaris and Oracle .. + a Dtrace master to drill down and see wh