Hey, all!
We've recently used six x4500 Thumpers, all publishing ~28TB iSCSI targets over
ip-multipathed 10GB ethernet, to build a ~150TB ZFS pool on an x4200 head node.
In trying to discover optimal ZFS pool construction settings, we've run a
number of iozone tests, so I thought I'd share them
Howdy!
Sounds good. We'll upgrade to 1.1 (b101) as soon as it is released, re-run
our battery of tests, and see where we stand.
Thanks!
-Gray
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:47 PM, James C. McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Gray Carper wrote:
>
>> Hello again! (And h
14, 2008 at 8:10 PM, James C. McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Gray Carper wrote:
>
>> Hey, all!
>>
>> We've recently used six x4500 Thumpers, all publishing ~28TB iSCSI
>> targets over ip-multipathed 10GB ethernet, to build a ~150TB ZFS pool on
irectory integration fixes,
but this sounds like another reason to be excited about it. Maybe this is a
discussion that should be tabled until we are able to upgrade?
-Gray
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:33 PM, James C. McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Gray Carper wrote:
>
>> Hey
those a shot and see if they yield performance enhancements.
-Gray
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Gray Carper wrote:
>
>>
>> So, how concerned should we be about the low scores here and there? Any
ultiple ZFS filesystems, each
with its own recordsize, quota, permissions, NFS/CIFS shares, etc.
I think that about covers the high-level stuff. If there's any area you want
to dive deeper into, fire away!
-Gray
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Brent Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&
case here, I would be surprized if a general
> config would cover all, though it might do with some luck.
> --
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> ___
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/
ually
need replication. (Which begs the question: Why build an identical 150TB
system to support that? Good question. I think we'll reevaluate. ;>)
-Gray
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Gray Carper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> Very valuable advice here (an
age?
>>
>> --
>> -Gary Mills--Unix Support--U of M Academic Computing and
>> Networking-
>> ___
>> zfs-discuss mailing list
>> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mai
mendations for SSD-performant
controllers that have great OpenSolaris driver support?
Thanks!
-Gray
--
Gray Carper
MSIS Technical Services
University of Michigan Medical School
gcar...@umich.edu | skype: graycarper | 734.418.8506
http://www.umms.med.umic
SDs out of the chassis, but leave the 32GB SSD in.
-Gray
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Will Murnane wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 02:36, Gray Carper wrote:
> > In the third test, we rebuilt the ZFS pool with the ZIL on a 32GB SSD and
> > the L2ARC on four 80GB SSDs.
>
D'oh - I take that back. Upon re-reading, I expect that you weren't
indicting MLC drives generally, just the JMicron-controlled ones. It looks
like we aren't suffering from those, though.
-Gray
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Gray Carper wrote:
> Hey there, Will! Thanks f
L2ARC, though?
Thanks!
-Gray
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Eric D. Mudama
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15 at 15:36, Gray Carper wrote:
>
>> Hey, all!
>>
>> Using iozone (with the sequential read, sequential write, random read,
>> and
>> random write
13 matches
Mail list logo
