Leon Koll wrote:
On 8/11/06, eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Leon Koll wrote:
> <...>
>
>> So having 4 pools isn't a recommended config - i would destroy
those 4
>> pools and just create 1 RAID-0 pool:
>> #zpool create sfsrocks c4t001738010140000Bd0 c4t001738010140000Cd0
>> c4t001738010140001Cd0 c4t0017380101400012d0
>>
>> each of those devices is a 64GB lun, right?
>
>
> I did it - created one pool, 4*64GB size, and running the benchmark
now.
> I'll update you on results, but one pool is definitely not what I
need.
> My target is - SunCluster with HA ZFS where I need 2 or 4 pools per
node.
>
Why do you need 2 or 4 pools per node?
If you're doing HA-ZFS (which is SunCluster 3.2 - only available in beta
right now), then you should divide your storage up to the number of
I know, I run the 3.2 now.
*active* pools. So say you have 2 nodes and 4 luns (each lun being
64GB), and only need one active node - then you can create one pool of
To have one active node doesn't look smart to me. I want to distribute
load between 2 nodes, not to have 1 active and 1 standby.
The LUN size in this test is 64GB but in real configuration it will be
6TB
all 4 luns, and attach the 4 luns to both nodes.
The way HA-ZFS basically works is that when the "active" node fails, it
does a 'zpool export', and the takeover node does a 'zpool import'. So
both nodes are using the same storage, but they cannot use the same
storage at the same time, see:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=49617
Yes, it works this way.
If however, you have 2 nodes, 4 luns, and wish both nodes to be active,
then you can divy up the storage into two pools. So each node has one
active pool of 2 luns. All 4 luns are doubly attached to both nodes,
and when one node fails, the takeover node then has 2 active pools.
I agree with you - I can have 2 active pools, not 4 in case of
dual-node cluster.
So how many nodes do you have? and how many do you wish to be "active"
at a time?
Currently - 2 nodes, both active. If I define 4 pools, I can easily
expand the cluster to the 4-nodes configuration, that may be the good
reason to have 4 pools.
Ok, that makes sense.
And what was your configuration for VxFS and SVM/UFS?
4 SVM concat volumes (I need a concatenation of 1TB LUNs if I am in
SC3.1 that doesn't support EFI label) with UFS or VxFS on top.
So you have 2 nodes, 2 file systems (of either UFS or VxFS) on each node?
I'm just trying to make sure its a fair comparison bewteen ZFS, UFS, and
VxFS.
And now comes the questions - my short test showed that 1-pool config
doesn't behave better than 4-pools one - with the first the box was
hung, with the second - didn't.
Why do you think the 1-pool config is better?
I suggested the 1 pool config before i knew you were doing HA-ZFS :)
Purposely dividing up your storage (by creating separate pools) in a
non-clustered environment usually doesn't make sense (root being one
notable exception).
eric
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
