Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool io to 6140 is really slow

2007-11-17 Thread Louwtjie Burger
You have a 6140 with SAS drives ?! When did this happen? On Nov 17, 2007 12:30 AM, Asif Iqbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have the following layout > > A 490 with 8 1.8Ghz and 16G mem. 6 6140s with 2 FC controllers using > A1 anfd B1 controller port 4Gbps speed. > Each controller has 2G NVRAM

Re: [zfs-discuss] slog tests on read throughput exhaustion (NFS)

2007-11-17 Thread Joe Little
On Nov 16, 2007 10:41 PM, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Joe Little wrote: > > On Nov 16, 2007 9:13 PM, Neil Perrin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Joe, > >> > >> I don't think adding a slog helped in this case. In fact I > >> believe it made performance worse. Previously the ZIL woul

Re: [zfs-discuss] read/write NFS block size and ZFS

2007-11-17 Thread Robert Milkowski
Hello msl, Thursday, November 15, 2007, 11:13:41 PM, you wrote: m> Hello all... m> I'm migrating a nfs server from linux to solaris, and all m> clients(linux) are using read/write block sizes of 8192. That was m> the better performance that i got, and it's working pretty well m> (nfsv3). I want

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to create ZFS pool ?

2007-11-17 Thread Dick Davies
Just a +1 - I use an fdisk partition for my zpool and it works fine (plan was to dual-boot with freebsd and this makes the vdevs slightly easier to address from both OSes). zpool doesn't care what the partition ID is, just give it zpool create gene c0d0pN _

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool io to 6140 is really slow

2007-11-17 Thread Asif Iqbal
On Nov 17, 2007 9:12 AM, Louwtjie Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You have a 6140 with SAS drives ?! When did this happen? OOPS! I meant FC-AL > > > > On Nov 17, 2007 12:30 AM, Asif Iqbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have the following layout > > > > A 490 with 8 1.8Ghz and 16G mem. 6 614

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool io to 6140 is really slow

2007-11-17 Thread Asif Iqbal
(Including storage-discuss) I have 6 6140s with 96 disks. Out of which 64 of them are Seagate ST337FC (300GB - 1 RPM FC-AL) I created 16k seg size raid0 luns using single fcal disks. Then created a zpool with 8 4+1 raidz1 using those luns, out of single disks. Also set the zfs nocache flu

Re: [zfs-discuss] pls discontinue troll bait was: Yager on ZFS and ZFS

2007-11-17 Thread can you guess?
> > I've been observing two threads on zfs-discuss with > the following > Subject lines: > > Yager on ZFS > ZFS + DB + "fragments" > > and have reached the rather obvious conclusion that > the author "can > you guess?" is a professional spinmeister, Ah - I see we have another incompetent psyc

Re: [zfs-discuss] [storage-discuss] zpool io to 6140 is really slow

2007-11-17 Thread Torrey McMahon
Have you tried disabling the zil cache flushing? http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#Cache_Flushes Asif Iqbal wrote: > (Including storage-discuss) > > I have 6 6140s with 96 disks. Out of which 64 of them are Seagate > ST337FC (300GB - 1 RPM FC-AL) > > I c

Re: [zfs-discuss] [storage-discuss] zpool io to 6140 is really slow

2007-11-17 Thread Asif Iqbal
On Nov 17, 2007 2:55 PM, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Have you tried disabling the zil cache flushing? I already have zfs nocache flush set to 1 to take advantage of NVRAM of the raid controllers set zfs:zfs_nocacheflush = 1 > > http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZF

Re: [zfs-discuss] pls discontinue troll bait was: Yager on ZFS and ZFS

2007-11-17 Thread Rich Teer
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, can you guess? wrote: > Ah - I see we have another incompetent psychic chiming in - and > judging by his drivel below a technical incompetent as well. While I > really can't help him with the former area, I can at least try to > educate him in the latter. I should know bette

Re: [zfs-discuss] pls discontinue troll bait was: Yager on ZFS and ZFS

2007-11-17 Thread Tim Spriggs
Rich Teer wrote: > I should know better than to reply to a troll, but I can't let this > personal attack stand. I know Al, and I can tell you for a fact that > he is *far* from "technically incompentent". > > Judging from the length of your diatribe (which I didn't bother reading), > you seem to