[zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
Greetings all I was looking at creating a little ZFS storage box at home using the following SATA controllers (Adaptec Serial ATA II RAID 1420SA) on Opensolaris X86 build Just wanted to know if anyone out there is using these and can vouch for them. If not if there's something else you can recommend or suggest. Disk's would be 6*Seagate 500GB drives. Thanks David 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] ZFS Project Hardware
I've had great luck with my Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 card so far. I'm using it in an old PCI slot, so it's probably not as fast as it could be, but it worked great right out of the box. -Aaron On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:09 AM, David Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greetings all I was looking at creating a little ZFS storage box at home using the following SATA controllers (Adaptec Serial ATA II RAID 1420SA) on Opensolaris X86 build Just wanted to know if anyone out there is using these and can vouch for them. If not if there's something else you can recommend or suggest. Disk's would be 6*Seagate 500GB drives. Thanks David This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
David Francis wrote: Greetings all I was looking at creating a little ZFS storage box at home using the following SATA controllers (Adaptec Serial ATA II RAID 1420SA) on Opensolaris X86 build Just wanted to know if anyone out there is using these and can vouch for them. If not if there's something else you can recommend or suggest. Disk's would be 6*Seagate 500GB drives. 6 or more SATA slots are quite common on current motherboards, so if you shop around, you may not need an add on card. Ian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
That 1420SA will not work, period. Type 1420sa solaris in Google and you'll find a thread about the problems I had with it. I sold it and took the cheap route again with a Silicon Image 3124-based adapter and had more problems which now probably would be solved with the latest Solaris updates. Anyway, I finally settled for a motherboard with an Intel ICH9-R and couldn't be happier (Intel DG33TL/DG33TLM, 6 SATA ports). No hassles and very speedy. That Supermicro card someone else is recommending should also work without any issues, and it's really cheap for what you get (8 ports). Your maximum throuhput won't exceed 100MB/s though if you can't plug it in a PCI-X slot but resort to a regular PCI slot instead. Greetings, Pascal 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] ZFS Project Hardware
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:47:18AM -0700, Pascal Vandeputte wrote: I sold it and took the cheap route again with a Silicon Image 3124-based adapter and had more problems which now probably would be solved with the latest Solaris updates. I'm running a 3124 with snv81 and haven't had a single problem with it. Whatever problems you ran into have likely been resolved. Just my $0.02. ;) -brian -- Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix. -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS panics solaris while switching a volume to read-only
Why does update 6 have to bve out before a patch can be produced for this? This is a show-stopper for putting ZFS into production on anything other then local disks, a production box that panics when a single disk goes offline is worse then useless. I cannot see why this is not a high priority bug. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] help with a BIG problem, can't import my zpool anymore
Hello, I'm having a big problem here, disastrous maybe. I have a zpool consisting of 4x500GB SATA drives, this pool was born on S10U4 and was recently upgraded to snv85 because of iSCSI issues with some initiator. Last night I was doing housekeeping, deleting old snapshots. One snapshot failed to delete because it had a dependant clone. So I try to destroy that clone: Everything went wrong from there. The deletion was taking an excessively long time (over 40 minutes). zpool status hungs when I call it. zfs list too. zpool iostat showed disk activity. Other services non dependant on the pool were running, and the iSCSI this machine was serving was unbearably slow. At one point, I lost all iSCSI, SSH, web, and all other services. Ping still worked. So I go to the server and notice that the fans are running at 100%. I try to get a console (local VGA+keyboard) but the monitor shows no signal. No disk activity seemed to be happening at the moment. So, I do the standard procedure (reboot). Solaris boots but stops at hostname: blah. I see disk activity from the pool disks, so I let it boot. 30 minutes later, still didn't finish. I thought (correctly) that the system was waiting to mount the ZFS before booting, but for some reason it doesn't. I call it the day and let the machine do its thing. 8 hours later I return. CPU is cold, disks are idle and... solaris stays at the same hostname: blah. Time to reboot again, this time in failsafe. zpool import shows that the devices are detected and online. I delete /etc/zfs/zpool.cache and reboot. Solaris starts normally with all services running, but of course no zfs. zpool import shows the available pool, no errors. I do zpool import -f pool... 20 minutes later I'm still waiting for the pool to mount. zpool iostat shows activity: capacity operationsbandwidth pool used avail read write read write -- - - - - - - tera1.51T 312G274 0 1.61M 2.91K tera1.51T 312G308 0 1.82M 0 tera1.51T 312G392 0 2.31M 0 tera1.51T 312G468 0 2.75M 0 but the mountpoint /tera is still not populated (and zpool import still doesn't exit). zpool status shows: pool: tera state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM teraONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1ONLINE 0 0 0 c1d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c2d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c4d0ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors What's going on? Why is taking so long to import? Thanks in advance, Hernan 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] help with a BIG problem, can't import my zpool anymore
I got more info. I can run zpool history and this is what I get: 2008-05-23.00:29:40 zfs destroy tera/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-23.00:29:47 [internal destroy_begin_sync txg:3890809] dataset = 152 2008-05-23.01:28:38 [internal destroy_begin_sync txg:3891101] dataset = 152 2008-05-23.07:01:36 zpool import -f tera 2008-05-23.07:01:40 [internal destroy_begin_sync txg:3891106] dataset = 152 2008-05-23.10:52:56 zpool import -f tera 2008-05-23.10:52:58 [internal destroy_begin_sync txg:3891112] dataset = 152 2008-05-23.12:17:49 [internal destroy_begin_sync txg:3891114] dataset = 152 2008-05-23.12:27:48 zpool import -f tera 2008-05-23.12:27:50 [internal destroy_begin_sync txg:3891120] dataset = 152 2008-05-23.13:03:07 [internal destroy_begin_sync txg:3891122] dataset = 152 2008-05-23.13:56:52 zpool import -f tera 2008-05-23.13:56:54 [internal destroy_begin_sync txg:3891128] dataset = 152 apparently, it starts destroying dataset #152, which is the parent snapshot of the clone I issued the command to destroy. Not sure how it works, but I ordered the deletion of the CLONE, not the snapshot (which I was going to destroy anyway). The question is still, why does it hang the machine? Why can't I access the filesystems? Isn't it supposed to import the zpool, mount the ZFSs and then do the destroy, in background? 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] ZFS Project Hardware
Brian Hechinger wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:47:18AM -0700, Pascal Vandeputte wrote: I sold it and took the cheap route again with a Silicon Image 3124-based adapter and had more problems which now probably would be solved with the latest Solaris updates. I'm running a 3124 with snv81 and haven't had a single problem with it. Whatever problems you ran into have likely been resolved. Just my $0.02. ;) -brian The Silicon Image 3114 also works like a champ, but it's SATA 1.0 only. It's dirt cheap (under $25), and you will probably need to re-flash the BIOS with one from Silicon Image's web site to remove the RAID software (Solaris doesn't understand it), but I've had nothing but success with this card (the re-flash is simple). On a related note - does anyone know of a good Solaris-supported 4+ port SATA card for PCI-Express? Preferably 1x or 4x slots... -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:25:34PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote: I'm running a 3124 with snv81 and haven't had a single problem with it. Whatever problems you ran into have likely been resolved. The Silicon Image 3114 also works like a champ, but it's SATA 1.0 only. It's dirt cheap (under $25), and you will probably need to re-flash the BIOS with one from Silicon Image's web site to remove the RAID software (Solaris doesn't understand it), but I've had nothing but success with this card (the re-flash is simple). With the 3124 you don't even need to do the flash game, the 3124 is comletely supported. On a related note - does anyone know of a good Solaris-supported 4+ port SATA card for PCI-Express? Preferably 1x or 4x slots... The Silicon Image 3134 is supported by Solaris. -brian -- Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix. -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 3510 JBOD with multipath
The Solaris SAN Configuration and Multipathing Guide proved very helpful for me: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/820-1931/ I, too was surprised to see MPIO enabled by default on x86 (we're using Dell/EMC CX3-40 with our X4500 X6250 systems). Charles Quoting Krutibas Biswal [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Krutibas, Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 10:43:03 AM, you wrote: KB On x64 Solaris 10, the default setting of mpxio was : KB mpxio-disable=no; KB I changed it to KB mpxio-disable=yes; KB and rebooted the machine and it detected 24 drives. Originally you wanted to get it multipathed which was the case by default. Now you have disabled it (well, you still have to paths but no automatic failover). Thanks. Can somebody point me to some documentation on this ? I wanted to see 24 drives so that I can use load sharing between two controllers (C1Disk1, C2Disk2, C1Disk3, C2Disk4...) for performance. If I enable multipathing, would the drive do automatic load balancing (sharing) between the two controllers ? Thanks, Krutibas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Indiana vs Nevada (for ZFS file server)
Pretty much what the subject says. I'm wondering which platform will have the best stability/performance for a ZFS file server. I've been using Solaris Express builds of Nevada for quite a while and I'm currently on build 79b but I'm at a point where I want to upgrade. So now I have to ask, should I go with the OpenSolaris (.com) release instead? Also, is there one that has better/newer driver support? (Mostly in relation to SATA controllers) Not sure if this is the right place to post this but since my main goal is a ZFS server then I should get your guys opinions. -- Christopher Gibbs Programmer / Analyst Web Integration Programming Abilene Christian University ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Brian Hechinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:25:34PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote: I'm running a 3124 with snv81 and haven't had a single problem with it. Whatever problems you ran into have likely been resolved. The Silicon Image 3114 also works like a champ, but it's SATA 1.0 only. It's dirt cheap (under $25), and you will probably need to re-flash the BIOS with one from Silicon Image's web site to remove the RAID software (Solaris doesn't understand it), but I've had nothing but success with this card (the re-flash is simple). With the 3124 you don't even need to do the flash game, the 3124 is comletely supported. On a related note - does anyone know of a good Solaris-supported 4+ port SATA card for PCI-Express? Preferably 1x or 4x slots... The Silicon Image 3134 is supported by Solaris. I'm looking on their site and don't even see any data on the 3134... this *something new* that hasn't been released or? The only thing I see is 3132. -brian -- Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix. -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking on their site and don't even see any data on the 3134... this *something new* that hasn't been released or? The only thing I see is 3132. There isn't a 3134, but there is a 3124, which is a PCI-X based 4-port. -B -- Brandon High[EMAIL PROTECTED] The good is the enemy of the best. - Nietzsche ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] What is a vdev?
Ok, so i make one vdev out of 8 discs. And I combine all vdevs into one large zpool? Is it correct? I have 8 port SATA card. I have 4 drives into one zpool. That is one vdev, right? Now I can add 4 new drives and make them into one zpool. And now I combine both zpool into one zpool? That can not be right? I dont get vdevs. Can someone explain? 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] What is a vdev?
On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 13:45 -0700, Orvar Korvar wrote: Ok, so i make one vdev out of 8 discs. And I combine all vdevs into one large zpool? Is it correct? I have 8 port SATA card. I have 4 drives into one zpool. zpool create mypool raidz1 disk0 disk1 disk2 disk3 you have a pool consisting of one vdev made up of 4 disks. That is one vdev, right? Now I can add 4 new drives and make them into one zpool. you could do that and keep the pool separate, or you could add them as a single vdev to the existing pool: zpool add mypool raidz1 disk4 disk5 disk6 disk7 - Bill ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Brandon High [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking on their site and don't even see any data on the 3134... this *something new* that hasn't been released or? The only thing I see is 3132. There isn't a 3134, but there is a 3124, which is a PCI-X based 4-port. -B -- Brandon High[EMAIL PROTECTED] The good is the enemy of the best. - Nietzsche So we're still stuck the same place we were a year ago. No high port count pci-E compatible non-raid sata cards. You'd think with all the demand SOMEONE would've stepped up to the plate by now. Marvell, cmon ;) --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] What is a vdev?
Orvar Korvar пишет: Ok, so i make one vdev out of 8 discs. And I combine all vdevs into one large zpool? Is it correct? I think it is easier to provide couple of examples: zpool create pool c1t0d0 mirror c1t1d0 c1t2d0 This command would create storage pool with name 'pool' consisting of 2 top-level vdevd: first is c1t0d0 second is a mirror of c1t1d0 c1t2d0 Though it is not recommended to combine top-level vdevs with different replication setting in one pool. ZFS will distribute blocks of data between these two top-level vdevs automatically, so blocks of data which end up on mirror will be protected, and blocks of data which end up on single disk will not be protected. zpool add pool c1t0d0 would add another single-disk top level to the pool 'pool' zpool add pool raidz c3t0d0 c4t0d0 c5t0d0 would add another raidz top-level vdev to our pool. Inside ZFS disks forming mirror and raidz are called vdev also, but not top-level vdevs. Hth, victor ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Indiana vs Nevada (for ZFS file server)
Depends on what your end goal is really. The opensolaris.com version is releasing every 6 months, and I don't believe there's currently any patching between releases. If you feel comfortable sitting on it that long, with potential bugs for 6 months, great. If not... it should be an easy choice. Personally I chose option 3 and loaded nexenta. You get regular updates, but it still *stable* (or has been for me to date). --Tim On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Christopher Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pretty much what the subject says. I'm wondering which platform will have the best stability/performance for a ZFS file server. I've been using Solaris Express builds of Nevada for quite a while and I'm currently on build 79b but I'm at a point where I want to upgrade. So now I have to ask, should I go with the OpenSolaris (.com) release instead? Also, is there one that has better/newer driver support? (Mostly in relation to SATA controllers) Not sure if this is the right place to post this but since my main goal is a ZFS server then I should get your guys opinions. -- Christopher Gibbs Programmer / Analyst Web Integration Programming Abilene Christian University ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Indiana vs Nevada (for ZFS file server)
One other thing I noticed is that OpenSolaris (.com) will automatically install ZFS root for you. Will Nexenta do that? On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Depends on what your end goal is really. The opensolaris.com version is releasing every 6 months, and I don't believe there's currently any patching between releases. If you feel comfortable sitting on it that long, with potential bugs for 6 months, great. If not... it should be an easy choice. Personally I chose option 3 and loaded nexenta. You get regular updates, but it still *stable* (or has been for me to date). --Tim On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Christopher Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pretty much what the subject says. I'm wondering which platform will have the best stability/performance for a ZFS file server. I've been using Solaris Express builds of Nevada for quite a while and I'm currently on build 79b but I'm at a point where I want to upgrade. So now I have to ask, should I go with the OpenSolaris (.com) release instead? Also, is there one that has better/newer driver support? (Mostly in relation to SATA controllers) Not sure if this is the right place to post this but since my main goal is a ZFS server then I should get your guys opinions. -- Christopher Gibbs Programmer / Analyst Web Integration Programming Abilene Christian University ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Christopher Gibbs Programmer / Analyst Web Integration Programming Abilene Christian University ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Indiana vs Nevada (for ZFS file server)
Yup. They were the first to do so (as far as I know). --Tim On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Christopher Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One other thing I noticed is that OpenSolaris (.com) will automatically install ZFS root for you. Will Nexenta do that? On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Depends on what your end goal is really. The opensolaris.com version is releasing every 6 months, and I don't believe there's currently any patching between releases. If you feel comfortable sitting on it that long, with potential bugs for 6 months, great. If not... it should be an easy choice. Personally I chose option 3 and loaded nexenta. You get regular updates, but it still *stable* (or has been for me to date). --Tim On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Christopher Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pretty much what the subject says. I'm wondering which platform will have the best stability/performance for a ZFS file server. I've been using Solaris Express builds of Nevada for quite a while and I'm currently on build 79b but I'm at a point where I want to upgrade. So now I have to ask, should I go with the OpenSolaris (.com) release instead? Also, is there one that has better/newer driver support? (Mostly in relation to SATA controllers) Not sure if this is the right place to post this but since my main goal is a ZFS server then I should get your guys opinions. -- Christopher Gibbs Programmer / Analyst Web Integration Programming Abilene Christian University ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Christopher Gibbs Programmer / Analyst Web Integration Programming Abilene Christian University ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On May 22, 2008, at 19:54, Richard Elling wrote: The Adaptive Replacement Cache (ARC) uses main memory as a read cache. But sometimes people want high performance, but don't want to spend money on main memory. So, the Level-2 ARC can be placed on a block device, such as a fast [solid state] disk which may even be volatile. The remote-disk cache makes perfect sense. I'm curious if there are measurable benefits for caching local disks as well? NAND-flash SSD drives have good 'seek' and slow transfer, IIRC, but that might still be useful for lots of small reads where seek is everything. I'm not quite understanding the argument for a being read-only so it can be used on volatile SDRAM-based SSD's, though. Those tend to be much, much more expensive than main memory, right? So, why would anybody buy one for cache - is it so they can front a really massive pool of disks that would exhaust market-available maximum main memory sizes? -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Bill McGonigle wrote: The remote-disk cache makes perfect sense. I'm curious if there are measurable benefits for caching local disks as well? NAND-flash SSD drives have good 'seek' and slow transfer, IIRC, but that might still be useful for lots of small reads where seek is everything. NAND-flash SSD drives also wear out. They are not very useful as a cache device which is written to repetitively. A busy server could likely wear one out in just a day or two unless the drive contains aggressive hardware-based write leveling so that it might survive a few more days, depending on how large the device is. Cache devices are usually much smaller and run a lot hotter than a normal filesystem. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] help with a BIG problem, can't import my zpool anymore
I let it run for about 4 hours. when I returned, still the same: I can ping the machine but I can't SSH to it, or use the console. Please, I need urgent help with this issue! 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] help with a BIG problem, can't import my zpool anymore
I let it run while watching TOP, and this is what I got just before it hung. Look at free mem. Is this memory allocated to the kernel? can I allow the kernel to swap? last pid: 7126; load avg: 3.36, 1.78, 1.11; up 0+01:01:11 21:16:49 88 processes: 78 sleeping, 9 running, 1 on cpu CPU states: 22.4% idle, 0.4% user, 77.2% kernel, 0.0% iowait, 0.0% swap Memory: 3072M phys mem, 31M free mem, 2055M swap, 1993M free swap PID USERNAME LWP PRI NICE SIZE RES STATETIMECPU COMMAND 7126 root 9 580 45M 4188K run 0:00 0.71% java 4821 root 1 590 5124K 1724K run 0:03 0.46% zfs 5096 root 1 590 5124K 1724K run 0:03 0.45% zfs 2470 root 1 590 4956K 1660K sleep0:06 0.45% zfs 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] help with a BIG problem, can't import my zpool anymore
Memory: 3072M phys mem, 31M free mem, 2055M swap, 1993M free swap perhaps this might help.. mkfile -n 4g /usr/swap swap -a/usr/swap http://blogs.sun.com/realneel/entry/zfs_arc_statistics Rob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
measurable benefits for caching local disks as well? NAND-flash SSD I'm confused, the only reason I can think of making a To create a pool with cache devices, specify a cache vdev with any number of devices. For example: # zpool create pool c0d0 c1d0 cache c2d0 c3d0 Cache devices cannot be mirrored or part of a raidz confi- guration. If a read error is encountered on a cache device, that read I/O is reissued to the original storage pool dev- ice, which might be part of a mirrored or raidz configuration. The content of the cache devices is considered volatile, as is the case with other system caches. device non-volatile was to fill the ARC after reboot, and the in ram ARC pointers for the cache device will take quite abit of ram too, so perhaps spending the $$ on more system ram rather than a SSD cache device would be better? unless you have really slow iscsi vdevs :-) Rob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] help with a BIG problem,
I forgot to post arcstat.pl's output: Time read miss miss% dmis dm% pmis pm% mmis mm% arcsz c 22:32:37 556K 525K 94 515K 949K 98 515K 97 1G1G 22:32:38636310063 100 0063 100 1G1G 22:32:39747410074 100 0074 100 1G1G 22:32:40767610076 100 0076 100 1G1G State Changed 22:32:41757510075 100 0075 100 1G1G 22:32:42777710077 100 0077 100 1G1G 22:32:43727210072 100 0072 100 1G1G 22:32:44808010080 100 0080 100 1G1G State Changed 22:32:45989810098 100 0098 100 1G1G sometimes c is 2G. I tried the mkfile and swap, but I get: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/]# mkfile -n 4g /export/swap [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/]# swap -a /export/swap /export/swap may contain holes - can't swap on it. /export is the only place where I have enough free space. I could add another drive if needed. 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] help with a BIG problem,
Hi, Herman You may not use '-n' to Makefile, that'll lead swap comlain. Hernan Freschi wrote: I forgot to post arcstat.pl's output: Time read miss miss% dmis dm% pmis pm% mmis mm% arcsz c 22:32:37 556K 525K 94 515K 949K 98 515K 97 1G1G 22:32:38636310063 100 0063 100 1G1G 22:32:39747410074 100 0074 100 1G1G 22:32:40767610076 100 0076 100 1G1G State Changed 22:32:41757510075 100 0075 100 1G1G 22:32:42777710077 100 0077 100 1G1G 22:32:43727210072 100 0072 100 1G1G 22:32:44808010080 100 0080 100 1G1G State Changed 22:32:45989810098 100 0098 100 1G1G sometimes c is 2G. I tried the mkfile and swap, but I get: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/]# mkfile -n 4g /export/swap [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/]# swap -a /export/swap /export/swap may contain holes - can't swap on it. /export is the only place where I have enough free space. I could add another drive if needed. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] help with a BIG problem,
Hernan Freschi пишет: I tried the mkfile and swap, but I get: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/]# mkfile -n 4g /export/swap [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/]# swap -a /export/swap /export/swap may contain holes - can't swap on it. You should not use -n for creating files for additional swap. This is mentioned in the mfile man page. Wbr, Victor ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] help with a BIG problem,
oops. replied too fast. Ran without -n, and space was added successfully... but it didn't work. It died out of memory again. 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] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: measurable benefits for caching local disks as well? NAND-flash SSD I'm confused, the only reason I can think of making a To create a pool with cache devices, specify a cache vdev with any number of devices. For example: # zpool create pool c0d0 c1d0 cache c2d0 c3d0 Cache devices cannot be mirrored or part of a raidz confi- guration. If a read error is encountered on a cache device, that read I/O is reissued to the original storage pool dev- ice, which might be part of a mirrored or raidz configuration. The content of the cache devices is considered volatile, as is the case with other system caches. device non-volatile was to fill the ARC after reboot, and the in ram ARC pointers for the cache device will take quite abit of ram too, so perhaps spending the $$ on more system ram rather than a SSD cache device would be better? unless you have really slow iscsi vdevs :-) Consider a case where you might use large, slow SATA drives (1 TByte, 7,200 rpm) for the main storage, and a single small, fast (36 GByte, 15krpm) drive for the L2ARC. This might provide a reasonable cost/performance trade-off. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] help with a BIG problem, can't import my zpool anymore
2008/5/24 Hernan Freschi [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I let it run while watching TOP, and this is what I got just before it hung. Look at free mem. Is this memory allocated to the kernel? can I allow the kernel to swap? No, the kernel will not use swap for this. But most of the memory used by the kernel is probably in caches that should release memory when needed. Is this a 32 or 64 bit system? ZFS will sometimes use all kernel address space on a 32-bit system. You can give the kernel more address space with this command (only on 32-bit system): eeprom kernelbase=0x5000 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
