Hello,
I'm now thinking there is some _real_ bug in the way zfs handles files systems
created with the pool itself (ie tank filesystem when zpool is tank, usually
mounted as /tank)
My own experiens shows that zfs is unable to send/receive recursively
(snapshots, child fs) properly when the desti
OK, that was the magic incantation I was looking for:
- changing the noprefetch option opened the floodgates to the L2ARC
- changing the max queue depth relived the wait time on the drives, although
I may undo this again in the benchmarking since these drives all have NCQ
I went from all four di
Greetings zfs-discuss@
I was trying to narrow this down for some quite time. The problem is
resides on couple of osol/sxce boxes that are used as dom0 hosts. Under
high disk load on domU guests (backup process for example) domU
performance is terrible. The worst thing is that iostat shows *ver
On Feb 14, 2010, at 9:24 AM, Bogdan Ćulibrk wrote:
> Greetings zfs-discuss@
>
> I was trying to narrow this down for some quite time. The problem is resides
> on couple of osol/sxce boxes that are used as dom0 hosts. Under high disk
> load on domU guests (backup process for example) domU perfor
I'm trying to set up an OpenSolaris 2009.6 server as a Fibre Channel storage
device, and I'm seeing painfully slow performance while copying large
(6-50GB) files -- like 3-5 MB/second over 4Gb FC. However, if instead of
creating a volume and exporting it via FC I create a standard filesystem and
ex
Richard first of all thank you for your time looking into this,
apricieting that.
What are my options from here? To move onto zvol with greater blocksize?
64k? 128k? Or I will get into another trouble going that way when I have
small reads coming from domU (ext3 with default blocksize of 4k)?
Bogdan Ćulibrk writes:
> What are my options from here? To move onto zvol with greater
> blocksize? 64k? 128k? Or I will get into another trouble going that
> way when I have small reads coming from domU (ext3 with default
> blocksize of 4k)?
yes, definitely. have you considered using NFS rathe
Hi Dave
So which hard drives are connected to which controllers?
And what device drivers are those controllers using?
The output from 'format', 'cfgadm' and 'prtconf -D'
may help us to understand.
Strange that you say that there are two hard drives
per controllers, but three drives are showing
hi
> So which hard drives are connected to which controllers?
> And what device drivers are those controllers using?
0. c7t0d0
/p...@0,0/pci8086,3...@3/pci1000,3...@0/s...@0,0
1. c7t1d0
/p...@0,0/pci8086,3...@3/pci1000,3...@0/s...@1,0
2. c8t0d0
/p
> Never mind. I have no interest in performance tests for Solaris 10.
> The code is so old, that it does not represent current ZFS at all.
Whatever. Regardless of what you say, it does show:
. Which is faster, raidz, or a stripe of mirrors?
. How much does raidz2 hurt perfor
> > iozone -m -t 8 -T -O -r 128k -o -s 12G
>
> Actually, it seems that this is more than sufficient:
>
>iozone -m -t 8 -T -r 128k -o -s 4G
Good news, cuz I kicked off the first test earlier today, and it seems like
it will run till Wednesday. ;-) The first run, on a single disk, took 6.5
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Dave Pooser wrote:
c7, c8 and c9 are LSI controllers using the MPT driver. The motherboard has
6 SATA ports which are presented as two controllers (presumably c10 and c11)
one for ports 0-3 and one for ports 4 and 5; both currently use the PCI-IDE
drivers.
One should expec
> Whatever. Regardless of what you say, it does show:
>
> · Which is faster, raidz, or a stripe of mirrors?
>
> · How much does raidz2 hurt performance compared to raidz?
>
> · Which is faster, raidz, or hardware raid 5?
>
> · Is a mirror twice as fast as a single d
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> Never mind. I have no interest in performance tests for Solaris 10.
> The code is so old, that it does not represent current ZFS at all.
Whatever. Regardless of what you say, it does show:
Since Richard abandoned Sun (in favor of gmail), he ha
>
> c7, c8 and c9 are LSI controllers using the MPT driver. The motherboard has
> 6 SATA ports which are presented as two controllers (presumably c10 and
> c11)
> one for ports 0-3 and one for ports 4 and 5; both currently use the PCI-IDE
> drivers.
>
>
on my motherboard, i can make the onboard sat
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
iozone -m -t 8 -T -O -r 128k -o -s 12G
Actually, it seems that this is more than sufficient:
iozone -m -t 8 -T -r 128k -o -s 4G
Good news, cuz I kicked off the first test earlier today, and it seems like
it will run till Wednesday. ;-) The
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Thomas Burgess wrote:
Solaris 10 has a really old version of ZFS. i know there are some
pretty big differences in zfs versions from my own non scientific
benchmarks. It would make sense that people wouldn't be as
interested in benchmarks of solaris 10 ZFS seeing as ther
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>
>
>> c7, c8 and c9 are LSI controllers using the MPT driver. The motherboard
>> has
>> 6 SATA ports which are presented as two controllers (presumably c10 and
>> c11)
>> one for ports 0-3 and one for ports 4 and 5; both currently use the
>>
On 2/14/10 4:12 PM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
Bogdan Ćulibrk writes:
What are my options from here? To move onto zvol with greater
blocksize? 64k? 128k? Or I will get into another trouble going that
way when I have small reads coming from domU (ext3 with default
blocksize of 4k)?
yes, defi
On 2/14/10 7:02 PM, zfs ml wrote:
On 2/14/10 4:12 PM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
Bogdan Ćulibrk writes:
What are my options from here? To move onto zvol with greater
blocksize? 64k? 128k? Or I will get into another trouble going that
way when I have small reads coming from domU (ext3 with def
Abdullah,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 03:42:38PM -0500, Abdullah Al-Dahlawi wrote:
> Hi Sanjeev
>
> linking the application to the ARCSTAT_BUMP(arcstat_hits) is not
> straightforward and time consuming especially if I am running many
> experiments.
>
> Brendan has commented on on the post by providi
> on my motherboard, i can make the onboard sata ports show up as IDE or SATA,
> you may look into that. It would probably be something like AHCI mode.
Yeah, I changed the motherboard setting from "enhanced" to AHCI and now
those ports show up as SATA.
--
Dave Pooser, ACSA
Manager of Information
oh, so i WAS right?
awesome
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Dave Pooser wrote:
> > on my motherboard, i can make the onboard sata ports show up as IDE or
> SATA,
> > you may look into that. It would probably be something like AHCI mode.
>
> Yeah, I changed the motherboard setting from "enhan
> I'm off to straighten out my controller distribution, check to see if I have
> write caching turned off on the motherboard ports, install the b132 build,
> and possibly grab some dinner while I'm about it. I'll report back to the
> list with any progress or lack thereof.
OK, the issue seems to b
On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>
> Whatever. Regardless of what you say, it does show:
>
> · Which is faster, raidz, or a stripe of mirrors?
>
> · How much does raidz2 hurt performance compared to raidz?
>
> · Which is faster, raidz, or hardware raid
25 matches
Mail list logo
