Re: [zfs-discuss] file concatenation with ZFS copy-on-write

Hi all I wonder if there has been any new development on this matter over the past 6 months. Today i pondered an idea of zfs-aware "mv", capable of doing zero read/write of file data when moving files between datasets of one pool. This seems like a "(z)cp" idea proposed in this thread and seem

Re: [zfs-discuss] file concatenation with ZFS copy-on-write

Hi all I wonder if there has been any new development on this matter over the past 6 months. Today i pondered an idea of zfs-aware "mv", capable of doing zero read/write of file data when moving files between datasets of one pool. This seems like a "(z)cp" idea proposed in this thread and seem

Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux

Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2010-Jun-11 17:41:38 +0800, Joerg Schilling > wrote: > >PP.S.: Did you know that FreeBSD _includes_ the GPLd Reiserfs in the FreeBSD > >kernel since a while and that nobody did complain about this, see e.g.: > > > >http://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/8/sys/gnu/fs/reiser

[zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

Hi, We are currently building a storage box based on OpenSolaris/Nexenta using ZFS. Our hardware specifications are as follows: Quad AMD G34 12-core 2.3 GHz (~110 GHz) 10 Crucial RealSSD (6Gb/s) 42 WD RAID Ed. 4 2TB disks + 6Gb/s SAS expanders LSI2008SAS (two 4x ports) Mellanox InfiniBand 40 Gbi

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On 6/15/2010 4:42 AM, Arve Paalsrud wrote: Hi, We are currently building a storage box based on OpenSolaris/Nexenta using ZFS. Our hardware specifications are as follows: Quad AMD G34 12-core 2.3 GHz (~110 GHz) 10 Crucial RealSSD (6Gb/s) 42 WD RAID Ed. 4 2TB disks + 6Gb/s SAS expanders LSI2008S

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On 15/06/2010 14:09, Erik Trimble wrote: I'm going to say something sacrilegious here: 128GB of RAM may be overkill. You have the SSDs for L2ARC - much of which will be the DDT, The point of L2ARC is that you start adding L2ARC when you can no longer physically put in (or afford) to add any mo

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On 6/15/2010 6:17 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote: On 15/06/2010 14:09, Erik Trimble wrote: I'm going to say something sacrilegious here: 128GB of RAM may be overkill. You have the SSDs for L2ARC - much of which will be the DDT, The point of L2ARC is that you start adding L2ARC when you can no long

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

> I'm going to say something sacrilegious here: 128GB of RAM may be > overkill. You have the SSDs for L2ARC - much of which will be the DDT, > but, if I'm reading this correctly, even if you switch to the 160GB > Intel X25-M, that give you 8 x 160GB = 1280GB of L2ARC, of which only > half is in-use

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On 6/15/2010 6:40 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: I'm going to say something sacrilegious here: 128GB of RAM may be overkill. You have the SSDs for L2ARC - much of which will be the DDT, but, if I'm reading this correctly, even if you switch to the 160GB Intel X25-M, that give you 8 x 160GB = 128

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On Jun 15, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: >> I'm going to say something sacrilegious here: 128GB of RAM may be >> overkill. You have the SSDs for L2ARC - much of which will be the DDT, >> but, if I'm reading this correctly, even if you switch to the 160GB >> Intel X25-M, that give y

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Arve Paalsrud wrote: > Hi, > > We are currently building a storage box based on OpenSolaris/Nexenta using > ZFS. > Our hardware specifications are as follows: > > Quad AMD G34 12-core 2.3 GHz (~110 GHz) > 10 Crucial RealSSD (6Gb/s) > 42 WD RAID Ed. 4 2TB disks + 6Gb

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 04:42 -0700, Arve Paalsrud wrote: > Hi, > > We are currently building a storage box based on OpenSolaris/Nexenta using > ZFS. > Our hardware specifications are as follows: > > Quad AMD G34 12-core 2.3 GHz (~110 GHz) > 10 Crucial RealSSD (6Gb/s) > 42 WD RAID Ed. 4 2TB disks

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 07:36 -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > > What I want to achieve is 2 GB/s+ NFS traffic against our ESX clusters > > (also InfiniBand-based), with both dedupe and compression enabled in ZFS. > > In general, both dedup and compression gain space by trading off performance. > You

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 6/15/2010 4:42 AM, Arve Paalsrud wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> We are currently building a storage box based on OpenSolaris/Nexenta using >> ZFS. >> Our hardware specifications are as follows: >> >> Quad AMD G34 12-core 2.3 GHz (~110 GHz) >> 10 Cru

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 6/15/2010 6:57 AM, Arve Paalsrud wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > > I'd go with 2 Intel X25-E 32GB models for ZIL. Mirror them - striping isn't >> really going to buy you much here (so far as I can tell).

[zfs-discuss] Dedup... still in beta status

Data: 90% of current computers has less than 9 GB of RAM, less than 5% has SSD systems. Let use a computer storage "standard", with a capacity of 4 TB ... dedupe on, dataset with blocks of 32 kb ..., 2 TB of data in use ... need 16 GB of memory just only for DTT ... but this will not see it unti

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 6/15/2010 6:17 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote: > >> On 15/06/2010 14:09, Erik Trimble wrote: >> >>> I'm going to say something sacrilegious here: 128GB of RAM may be >>> overkill. You have the SSDs for L2ARC - much of which will be the DDT, >>>

[zfs-discuss] OCZ Devena line of enterprise SSD

OCZ has a new line of enterprise SSDs, based on the SandForce 1500 controller. These three have a supercapacitor: OCZ Deneva Reliability 2.5" MLC SSD OCZ Deneva Reliability 2.5" SLC SSD

Re: [zfs-discuss] COMSTAR dropouts with dedup enabled

Thanks Brandon, This system has 24GB of RAM and currently no L2ARC. The total de duplicated data was about 250GB so I wouldn't have thought I would be out of RAM, I've removed the LUN for the time being so I can't get the DDR size at the moment. I have some X25-E's to go in as L2ARC and SLOG so

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Data Loss on system crash/upgrade

Hi Austin, No much help, as it turns out. I don't see any evidence that a recovery mechanism, where you might lose a few seconds of data transactions, was triggered. It almost sounds like your file system was rolled back to a previous snapshot because the data is lost as of a certain date. I

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

> -Original Message- > From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com] > Sent: 15. juni 2010 17:43 > To: Arve Paalsrud > Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+) > > On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 04:42 -0700, Arve Paalsrud wrote: > > Hi, >

[zfs-discuss] zpool export / import discrepancy

Hello All, I've migrated a JBOD of 16 drives from one server to another. I did a zpool export from the old system and a zpool import to the new system. One thing I did notice is since the drives are on a different controller card, the naming is different (as expected) but the order is also di

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 18:33 +0200, Arve Paalsrud wrote: > > What about the ZIL bandwidth in this case? I mean, could I stripe across > multiple devices to be able to handle higher throughput? Otherwise I would > still be limited to the performance of the unit itself (155 MB/s). > I think so.

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool export / import discrepancy

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Scott Squires wrote: > Is ZFS dependent on the order of the drives? Will this cause any issue > down the road? Thank you all; > >From what I can see so far, ZFS doesn't care about the order of the drives as listed in zpool output. Just that the drives are acce

[zfs-discuss] NexentaStor Community edition 3.0.3 released

Hi All, On behalf of NexentaStor team, I'm happy to announce the release of NexentaStor Community Edition 3.0.3. This release is the result of the community efforts of Nexenta Partners and users. Changes over 3.0.2 include * Many fixes to ON/ZFS backported to b134. * Multiple bug fixes in the app

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Devena line of enterprise SSD

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Roger Hernandez wrote: > OCZ has a new line of enterprise SSDs, based on the SandForce 1500 > controller. The SLC based drive should be great as a ZIL, and the MLC drives should be a close second. Neither is cost effective as a L2ARC, since the cache device doesn

Re: [zfs-discuss] Dedup... still in beta status

On 6/15/2010 9:03 AM, Fco Javier Garcia wrote: Data: 90% of current computers has less than 9 GB of RAM, less than 5% has SSD systems. Let use a computer storage "standard", with a capacity of 4 TB ... dedupe on, dataset with blocks of 32 kb ..., 2 TB of data in use ... need 16 GB of memory jus

[zfs-discuss] SSDs adequate ZIL devices?

There has been many threads in the past asking about ZIL devices. Most of them end up in recommending Intel X-25 as an adequate device. Nevertheless there is always the warning about them not heeding cache flushes. But what use is a ZIL that ignores cache flushes? If I'm willing to tolerate that (

Re: [zfs-discuss] Dedup... still in beta status

> Realistically, I think people are overtly-enamored > with dedup as a > feature - I would generally only consider it > worth-while in cases where > you get significant savings. And by significant, I'm > talking an order of > magnitude space savings. A 2x savings isn't really > enough to counte

Re: [zfs-discuss] Dedup... still in beta status

On 6/15/2010 10:52 AM, Erik Trimble wrote: Frankly, dedup isn't practical for anything but enterprise-class machines. It's certainly not practical for desktops or anything remotely low-end. This isn't just a ZFS issue - all implementations I've seen so far require enterprise-class solutions

Re: [zfs-discuss] Dedup... still in beta status

>From: Fco Javier Garcia >Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:21 AM > >> Realistically, I think people are overtly-enamored with dedup as a >> feature - I would generally only consider it worth-while in cases >> where you get significant savings. And by significant, I'm talking an >> order of magnitude

Re: [zfs-discuss] Dedup... still in beta status

or as a member of the ZFS team > (which I'm not). > Then you have to be brutally good with Java > -- > Erik Trimble > Java System Support > Mailstop: usca22-123 > Phone: x17195 > Santa Clara, CA > > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discus

Re: [zfs-discuss] Dedup... still in beta status

On 6/15/2010 11:49 AM, Geoff Nordli wrote: From: Fco Javier Garcia Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:21 AM Realistically, I think people are overtly-enamored with dedup as a feature - I would generally only consider it worth-while in cases where you get significant savings. And by significa

Re: [zfs-discuss] Dedup... still in beta status

On 6/15/2010 11:53 AM, Fco Javier Garcia wrote: or as a member of the ZFS team (which I'm not). Then you have to be brutally good with Java Thanks, but I do get it wrong every so often (hopefully, rarely). More importantly, I don't know anything about the internal goings-on o

[zfs-discuss] Complete Linux Noob

I have been researching different types of raids, and I happened across raidz, and I am blown away. I have been trying to find resources to answer some of my questions, but many of them are either over my head in terms of details, or foreign to me as I am a linux noob, and I have to admit I hav

Re: [zfs-discuss] Complete Linux Noob

Some of my terminology may not be 100% accurate, so apologies in advance to the pedants on this list. ;) On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:13 PM, CarlPalmer wrote: > I have been researching different types of raids, and I happened across > raidz, and I am blown away. I have been trying to find resour

Re: [zfs-discuss] Complete Linux Noob

> How do I share these types of raid pools across the network. Or more > specifically, how do I access them from Windows based systems? Is > there any special trick? Most of your questions are answered here http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/download/Community+Group+zfs/docs/zfslast.pdf Vennlige h

Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote: Sorry but your reply is completely misleading as the people who claim that there is a legal problem with having ZFS in the Linux kernel would of course also claim that Reiserfs cannot be in the FreeBSD kernel. It seems that it is a license violation

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Devena line of enterprise SSD

Price? I cannot find it. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Native ZFS for Linux

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > > Sorry but your reply is completely misleading as the people who claim that > > there is a legal problem with having ZFS in the Linux kernel would of course > > also claim that Reiserfs cannot be in the FreeBSD kernel. >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Complete Linux Noob

On Tue, June 15, 2010 14:13, CarlPalmer wrote: > I have been researching different types of raids, and I happened across > raidz, and I am blown away. I have been trying to find resources to > answer some of my questions, but many of them are either over my head in > terms of details, or foreign

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool export / import discrepancy

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Scott Squires wrote: > Is ZFS dependent on the order of the drives?  Will this cause any issue down > the road?  Thank you all; No. In your case the logical names changed but ZFS managed to order the disks correctly as they were before. -- Giovanni

Re: [zfs-discuss] SSDs adequate ZIL devices?

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Arne Jansen wrote: In case of a power failure I will likely lose about as many writes as I do with SSDs, a few milliseconds. I agree with your concerns, but the data loss may span as much as 30 seconds rather than just a few milliseconds. Using an SSD as the ZIL allows

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs-discuss Digest, Vol 56, Issue 78

-- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100615/767d6c7d/attachment-0001.html > -- Message: 6 Date: Tue, 15 J

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Data Loss on system crash/upgrade

Cindy, I've attached the results of the fmdump -eV command. They don't tell me anything, but someone more knowledgeable might be able to decipher it. As for snapshots, the earliest one I have is from after the new hardware. It doesn't appear that there are any snapshots from before the cras

Re: [zfs-discuss] SSDs adequate ZIL devices?

> So why buy SSD for ZIL at all? For the record, not all SSDs "ignore cache flushes". There are at least two SSDs sold today that guarantee synchronous write semantics; the Sun/Oracle LogZilla and the DDRdrive X1. Also, I believe it is more accurate to describe the root cause as not power pro

Re: [zfs-discuss] High-Performance ZFS (2000MB/s+)

On 15/06/2010 12:42, "Arve Paalsrud" wrote: > Hi, > > We are currently building a storage box based on OpenSolaris/Nexenta using > ZFS. > Our hardware specifications are as follows: > > Quad AMD G34 12-core 2.3 GHz (~110 GHz) > 10 Crucial RealSSD (6Gb/s) > 42 WD RAID Ed. 4 2TB disks + 6Gb/s SAS

Re: [zfs-discuss] SSDs adequate ZIL devices?

On 15/06/2010 23:46, "Christopher George" wrote: >> So why buy SSD for ZIL at all? > > For the record, not all SSDs "ignore cache flushes". There are at least > two SSDs sold today that guarantee synchronous write semantics; the > Sun/Oracle LogZilla and the DDRdrive X1. Also, I believe it

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool export / import discrepancy

http://blogs.sun.com/constantin/entry/csi_munich_how_to_save 2010/6/15 Scott Squires > Hello All, > > I've migrated a JBOD of 16 drives from one server to another. I did a > zpool export from the old system and a zpool import to the new system. One > thing I did notice is since the drives are

Re: [zfs-discuss] Dedup... still in beta status

On 06/15/10 10:52, Erik Trimble wrote: Frankly, dedup isn't practical for anything but enterprise-class machines. It's certainly not practical for desktops or anything remotely low-end. We're certainly learning a lot about how zfs dedup behaves in practice. I've enabled dedup on two desktops

Re: [zfs-discuss] Dedup... still in beta status

On Jun 15, 2010, at 14:20, Fco Javier Garcia wrote: I think dedup may have its greatest appeal in VDI environments (think about a environment with 85% if the data that the virtual machine needs is into ARC or L2ARC... is like a dream...almost instantaneous response... and you can boot a new

Re: [zfs-discuss] Dedup... still in beta status

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:28 PM, David Magda wrote: > On Jun 15, 2010, at 14:20, Fco Javier Garcia wrote: > >> I think dedup may have its greatest appeal in VDI environments (think >> about a environment with 85% if the data that the virtual machine needs is >> into ARC or L2ARC... is like a dream

Re: [zfs-discuss] size of slog device

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn > > It is good to keep in mind that only small writes go to the dedicated > slog. Large writes to to main store. A succession of that many small > writes (to fill RAM/2) is hi

Re: [zfs-discuss] size of slog device

On Jun 15, 2010, at 8:13 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn >> >> It is good to keep in mind that only small writes go to the dedicated >> slog. Large writes to to main store. A

Re: [zfs-discuss] SSDs adequate ZIL devices?

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Arne Jansen wrote: In case of a power failure I will likely lose about as many writes as I do with SSDs, a few milliseconds. I agree with your concerns, but the data loss may span as much as 30 seconds rather than just a few milliseconds. Wait, I

Re: [zfs-discuss] size of slog device

On Jun 15, 2010, at 8:51 PM, Richard Elling wrote >> I thought, if you didn't explicitly tune these, all sync writes go to ZIL >> before the main store. Can't seem to find any way to verify this. > > Cake. All sync writes go to the ZIL. The ZIL may be in the pool or in > the separate log device

Re: [zfs-discuss] SSDs adequate ZIL devices?

Not to forget the The Deneva Reliability disks from OCZ that just got released. See http://www.oczenterprise.com/details/ocz-deneva-reliability-2-5-emlc-ssd.htm l "The Deneva Reliability family features built-in supercapacitor (SF-1500 models) that acts as a temporary power backup in the event of