Hi Everyone,
It looks like I've got something weird going with zfs performance on a
ramdiskZFS is performing not even a 3rd of what UFS is doing.
Short version:
Create 80+ GB ramdisk (ramdiskadm), system has 96GB, so we aren't swapping
Create zpool on it (zpool create ram)
Change zfs op
It can, but doesn't in the command line shown below.
M
On Mar 8, 2010, at 6:04 PM, "ольга крыжановская" wrote:
> Does iozone use mmap() for IO?
>
> Olga
>
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Matt Cowger
> wrote:
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>>
>
On Mar 8, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
>> Same deal for UFS, replacing the ZFS stuff with newfs stuff and mounting the
>> UFS forcedirectio (no point in using a buffer cache memory for something
>> that’s already in memory)
>
> Did you also set primarycache=none?
> -- richard
Good
On Mar 8, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>
> if you have an actual need for an in-memory filesystem, will tmpfs fit
> the bill?
>
> - Bill
Very good point bill - just ran this test and started to get the numbers I was
expecting (1.3 GB
Ross is correct - advanced OS features are not required here - just the ability
to store a file - don’t even need unix style permissions
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ross Walker
Sent: Tuesday, M
a significant drain of CPU resource.
>
> -r
>
>
> Le 8 mars 10 à 17:57, Matt Cowger a écrit :
>
>> Hi Everyone,
>>
>> It looks like I¹ve got something weird going with zfs performance on
>> a ramdiskS.ZFS is performing not even a 3rd of what UFS is doing.
Ross Walker [mailto:rswwal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 3:53 PM
To: Roch Bourbonnais
Cc: Matt Cowger; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] terrible ZFS performance compared to UFS on ramdisk
(70% drop)
On Mar 9, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Roch Bourbonnais
wrote:
>
&
On Mar 10, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> Yes, noting the warning.
Is it safe to execute on a live, active pool?
--m
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
This is totally doable, and a reasonable use of zfs snapshots - we do some
similar things.
You can easily determine if the snapshot has changed by checking the output of
zfs list for the snapshot.
--M
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-bou
scuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Harry Putnam
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:23 PM
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] snapshots as versioning tool
Matt Cowger writes:
> This is totally doable, and a reasonable use of zfs snapshots - we
> do some simil
[zfs-discuss] snapshots as versioning tool
|
| Matt Cowger writes:
|
| > zfs list | grep '@'
| >
| > zpool/f...@1154758324G - 461G -
| > zpool/f...@1208482 6.94G - 338G -
| > zpool/f...@daily.net
RAIDZ = RAID5, so lose 1 drive (1.5TB)
RAIDZ2 = RAID6, so lose 2 drives (3TB)
RAIDZ3 = RAID7(?), so lose 3 drives (4.5TB).
What you lose in useable space, you gain in redundancy.
-m
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org]
It probably put an EFI label on the disk. Try doing a wiping the first AND
last 2MB.
--M
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of nich romero
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 1:00 PM
To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.
I note in your iostat data below that one drive (sd5) consistently performs
MUCH worse than the others, even when doing less work.
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of John J Balestrini
Sent: Tuesday, M
We actually did some pretty serious testing with SATA SLCs from Sun directly
hosting zpools (not as L2ARC). We saw some really bad performance - as though
there were something wrong, but couldn't find it.
If you search my name on this list you'll find the description of the problem.
--m
m a t
You can truncate a file:
Echo "" > bigfile
That will free up space without the 'rm'
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David Dyer-Bennet
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 12:59 PM
To: zfs-discuss@opens
I can't believe its almost a year later, with a patch provided, and this bug is
still not fixed.
For those of us that cant recompile the sources, it makes solaris useless if we
want to use a firewire drive.
--m
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Anyone willing to provide the modified kernel binaries for opensolaris2008.05?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
18 matches
Mail list logo
