Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vq_max_pending value ?

2008-01-23 Thread Roch - PAE
Manoj Nayak writes: > Hi All. > > ZFS document says ZFS schedules it's I/O in such way that it manages to > saturate a single disk bandwidth using enough concurrent 128K I/O. > The no of concurrent I/O is decided by vq_max_pending.The default value > for vq_max_pending is 35. > > We

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vq_max_pending value ?

2008-01-23 Thread Manoj Nayak
Roch - PAE wrote: > Manoj Nayak writes: > > Hi All. > > > > ZFS document says ZFS schedules it's I/O in such way that it manages to > > saturate a single disk bandwidth using enough concurrent 128K I/O. > > The no of concurrent I/O is decided by vq_max_pending.The default value > > for v

[zfs-discuss] ZFS and DragonflyBSD's HAMMER

2008-01-23 Thread David Magda
Hello, Thought I'd mention a recent (slightly biased) article comparing DragonflyBSD's new HAMMER file system and ZFS: Infinite [automatic] snapshots As-of mounts [like PITR on Postgres] Clustered Backups made easy File database Huge ("multi-hundr

[zfs-discuss] Status on shrinking zpool

2008-01-23 Thread John
This is one feature I've been hoping for... old threads and blogs talk about this feature possibly showing up by the end of 2007 just curious on what the status of this feature is... thanks, john This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vq_max_pending value ?

2008-01-23 Thread Will Murnane
On Jan 23, 2008 6:36 AM, Manoj Nayak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It means 4-disk raid-z group inside ZFS pool is exported to ZFS as a > single device ( vdev ) .ZFS assigns vq_max_pending value of 35 to this vdev. > To get higher throughput , I need to do following things ? > > 1.Reduce no of disks

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vq_max_pending value ?

2008-01-23 Thread Richard Elling
Manoj Nayak wrote: > Roch - PAE wrote: > >> Manoj Nayak writes: >> > Hi All. >> > >> > ZFS document says ZFS schedules it's I/O in such way that it manages to >> > saturate a single disk bandwidth using enough concurrent 128K I/O. >> > The no of concurrent I/O is decided by vq_max_pendin

Re: [zfs-discuss] sharenfs with over 10000 file systems

2008-01-23 Thread Akhilesh Mritunjai
I remember reading a discussion where these kind of problems were discussed. Basically it boils down to "everything" not being aware of the radical changes in "filesystems" concept. All these things are being worked on, but it might take sometime before everything is made aware that yes it's no

Re: [zfs-discuss] sharenfs with over 10000 file systems

2008-01-23 Thread Albert Chin
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 08:02:22AM -0800, Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote: > I remember reading a discussion where these kind of problems were > discussed. > > Basically it boils down to "everything" not being aware of the > radical changes in "filesystems" concept. > > All these things are being worked

Re: [zfs-discuss] Updated ZFS Automatic Snapshot Service - version 0.10.

2008-01-23 Thread MC
> Is this service something that we'd like to put into OpenSolaris Heck yes, at least Indiana needs something like that. I guess nobody is spearheading the "Indiana data backup solution" right now, but that work of yours could be part of it. To the user there is no difference between "regularl

[zfs-discuss] Snapshot size larger than expected

2008-01-23 Thread Matt Newcombe
Hi, We're currently testing a Thumper running Solaris10 with a view to buying a couple. I'm not seeing what I would expect to see as far as snapshot space utilization and am hoping someone could explain why. Here's what I'm doing - Creating an empty zpool & zfs Creating a 6MB text file Takin

[zfs-discuss] Synchronous scrub?

2008-01-23 Thread Dan McDonald
Say I'm firing off an at(1) or cron(1) job to do scrubs, and say I want to scrub two pools sequentially because they share one device. The first pool, BTW, is a mirror comprising of a smaller disk and a subset of a larger disk. The other pool is the remainder of the larger disk. I see no docu

Re: [zfs-discuss] Snapshot size larger than expected

2008-01-23 Thread A Darren Dunham
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:11:38AM -0800, Matt Newcombe wrote: > Creating an empty zpool & zfs > Creating a 6MB text file > Taking a snapshot > > So far so good. The filesystem size is 6MB and the snapshot 0MB > > Now I edit the first 4 characters of the text file. I would have > expected the siz

Re: [zfs-discuss] Snapshot size larger than expected

2008-01-23 Thread Eric Schrock
How are you editing the file? Are you sure your editor isn't writing out the entire file even though only four characters have changed? If you truss the app, do you see a single 4 byte write to the file? - Eric On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:11:38AM -0800, Matt Newcombe wrote: > Hi, > > We're curr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Synchronous scrub?

2008-01-23 Thread Eric Schrock
Sorry, no such feature exists. We do generate sysevents for when resilvers are completed, but not scrubs. Adding those sysevents would be an easy change, but doing anything more complicated (such as baking that functionality into zpool(1M)) would be annoying. If you want an even more hacked up v

Re: [zfs-discuss] Snapshot size larger than expected

2008-01-23 Thread Matt Newcombe
OK, to answer my own question (with a little help from Eric!) ... I was using vi to edit the file which must be rewriting the entire file back out to disk - hence the larger than expected growth of the snapshot. Matt This message posted from opensolaris.org __

[zfs-discuss] Issue fixing ZFS corruption

2008-01-23 Thread Bertrand Sirodot
Hi, I have been experiencing corruption on one of my ZFS pool over the last couple of days. I have tried running zpool scrub on the pool, but everytime it comes back with new files being corrupted. I would have thought that zpool scrub would have identified the corrupted files once and for all

Re: [zfs-discuss] Synchronous scrub?

2008-01-23 Thread Richard Elling
Dan McDonald wrote: > Say I'm firing off an at(1) or cron(1) job to do scrubs, and say I want to > scrub two pools sequentially > because they share one device. The first pool, BTW, is a mirror comprising > of a smaller disk and a subset of a larger disk. The other pool is the > remainder of t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Synchronous scrub?

2008-01-23 Thread Dan McDonald
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:56:16PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote: > This is pretty trivial to code in a script. Here is a ksh function > I use for testing resilvering performance. > > function wait_for_resilver { > date > while zpool status $POOLNAME | grep "resilver in progress" >

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and DragonflyBSD's HAMMER

2008-01-23 Thread me
> Thought I'd mention a recent (slightly biased) article comparing > DragonflyBSD's new HAMMER file system and ZFS: > > Fo those who don't know, DragonflyBSD is a fork of FreeBSD 4.x who's > "ultimate goal is to provide generic clustering support natively in > the kernel": Let's wait and see. Di

Re: [zfs-discuss] LVM on ZFS

2008-01-23 Thread Thomas Maier-Komor
Thiago Sobral schrieb: > Hi Thomas, > > Thomas Maier-Komor escreveu: >> Thiago Sobral schrieb: >>> >>> I need to manage volumes like LVM does on Linux or AIX, and I think >>> that ZFS can solve this issue. >>> >>> I read the SVM specification and certainly it doesn't will be the >>> solution that

Re: [zfs-discuss] Issue fixing ZFS corruption

2008-01-23 Thread Jeff Bonwick
The Silicon Image 3114 controller is known to corrupt data. Google for "silicon image 3114 corruption" to get a flavor. I'd suggest getting your data onto different h/w, quickly. Jeff On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:34:56PM -0800, Bertrand Sirodot wrote: > Hi, > > I have been experiencing corruption

Re: [zfs-discuss] Issue fixing ZFS corruption

2008-01-23 Thread Erast Benson
I believe issue been fixed in snv_72+, no? On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 16:41 -0800, Jeff Bonwick wrote: > The Silicon Image 3114 controller is known to corrupt data. > Google for "silicon image 3114 corruption" to get a flavor. > I'd suggest getting your data onto different h/w, quickly. > > Jeff > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Issue fixing ZFS corruption

2008-01-23 Thread Jonathan Stewart
Jeff Bonwick wrote: > The Silicon Image 3114 controller is known to corrupt data. > Google for "silicon image 3114 corruption" to get a flavor. > I'd suggest getting your data onto different h/w, quickly. I'll second this, the 3114 is a piece of junk if you value your data. I bought a 4 port LSI

Re: [zfs-discuss] Issue fixing ZFS corruption

2008-01-23 Thread Jeff Bonwick
Actually s10_72, but it's not really a fix, it's a workaround for a bug in the hardware. I don't know how effective it is. Jeff On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 04:54:54PM -0800, Erast Benson wrote: > I believe issue been fixed in snv_72+, no? > > On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 16:41 -0800, Jeff Bonwick wrote: >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Issue fixing ZFS corruption

2008-01-23 Thread Erast Benson
well, we had some problems with si3124 driver, but with driver binary posted in this forum the problem seems been fixed. Later we saw the same fix went in into b72. On Thu, 2008-01-24 at 05:11 +0300, Jonathan Stewart wrote: > Jeff Bonwick wrote: > > The Silicon Image 3114 controller is known to co

Re: [zfs-discuss] Issue fixing ZFS corruption

2008-01-23 Thread Bertrand Sirodot
Hi, if I want to stay with SATA and not go to SAS, do you have a recommendation on which SATA controller is actually supported by Solaris? The weird thing about the corruption is that everything was fine, until one of the disks went flaky and things went downhill on the resilvering. No I am lef

Re: [zfs-discuss] Issue fixing ZFS corruption

2008-01-23 Thread Jonathan Stewart
Bertrand Sirodot wrote: > Hi, > > if I want to stay with SATA and not go to SAS, do you have a > recommendation on which SATA controller is actually supported by > Solaris? SAS controllers do support SATA drives actually (not the other way around though). I'm running SATA drives on mine without

Re: [zfs-discuss] Status on shrinking zpool

2008-01-23 Thread Matthew Ahrens
John wrote: > This is one feature I've been hoping for... old threads and blogs talk about > this feature possibly showing up by the end of 2007 just curious on what > the status of this feature is... It's still a high priority on our road map, just pushed back a bit. Our current goal is t