On 10/09/2010 04:24, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
C) Does zfs send zfs receive mean it will defrag?
Scores so far:
1 No
2 Yes
"maybe". If there is sufficient contiguous freespace in the destination
pool, files may be less fragmented.
But if you do incremental sends of multiple snapshots, you may w
Ok, now I know it's not related to the I/O performance, but to the ZFS itself.
At some time all 3 pools were locked in that way:
extended device statistics errors ---
r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsvc_t asvc_t %w %b s/w h/w
trn tot device
0.0
On 9/10/10 4:16 PM, Piotr Jasiukajtis wrote:
Ok, now I know it's not related to the I/O performance, but to the ZFS itself.
At some time all 3 pools were locked in that way:
extended device statistics errors ---
r/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv wsv
I don't have any errors from fmdump or syslog.
The machine is SUN FIRE X4275 I don't use mpt or lsi drivers.
It could be a bug in a driver since I see this on 2 the same machines.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> On 9/10/10 4:16 PM, Piotr Jasiukajtis wrote:
>>
>> Ok, now I
You are both right. More below...
On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Piotr Jasiukajtis wrote:
> I don't have any errors from fmdump or syslog.
> The machine is SUN FIRE X4275 I don't use mpt or lsi drivers.
> It could be a bug in a driver since I see this on 2 the same machines.
>
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2
On Sep 9, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Fei Xu wrote:
> Just to update the status and findings.
Thanks for the update.
> I've checked TLER settings and they are off by default.
>
> I moved the source pool to another chassis and do the 3.8TB send again. this
> time, not any problems! the difference is
>
On Sep 9, 2010, at 6:39 AM, Marty Scholes wrote:
> Erik wrote:
>> Actually, your biggest bottleneck will be the IOPS
>> limits of the
>> drives. A 7200RPM SATA drive tops out at 100 IOPS.
>> Yup. That's it.
>> So, if you need to do 62.5e6 IOPS, and the rebuild
>> drive can do just 100
>> IOPS,
> > by the way, in HDtune, I saw C7: Ultra DMA CRC
> error count is a little high which indicates a
> potential connection issue. Maybe all are caused by
> the enclosure?
>
> Bingo!
You are right, I've done a lot of tests and the defect is narrorw down the
"problem hardware". The two pool wo
bash-3.00# uname -a
SunOS testxx10 5.10 Generic_142910-17 i86pc i386 i86pc
bash-3.00# zpool upgrade -v
This system is currently running ZFS pool version 22.
The following versions are supported:
VER DESCRIPTION
---
1 Initial ZFS versi
