Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
Erik Trimble wrote: On a related note - does anyone know of a good Solaris-supported 4+ port SATA card for PCI-Express? Preferably 1x or 4x slots... From what I can tell, all the vendors are only making SAS controllers for PCIe with more than 4 ports. Since SAS supports SATA, I guess they don't see much point in doing SATA-only controllers. For example, the LSI SAS3081E-R is $260 for 8 SAS ports on 8x PCIe, which is somewhat more expensive than the almost equivalent PCI-X LSI SAS3080X-R which is as low as $180. For those downthread looking for full RAID controllers with battery backup RAM, Areca (who formerly specialised in SATA controlers) now do SAS RAID at reasonable prices, and have Solaris drivers. -- James Andrewartha ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Disabling ZFS ACL
that is my thread and I'm still having issues even after applying that patch. It just came up again this week. [locahost] uname -a Linux dv-121-25.centtech.com 2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 #1 SMP Wed Mar 5 11:37:38 EST 2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [localhost] cat /etc/issue CentOS release 5 (Final) Kernel \r on an \m [localhost: /n/scr20] touch test [localhost: /n/scr20] mv test /n/scr01/test/ ** this is a UFS mount on FreeBSD mv: preserving permissions for `/n/scr01/test/test': Operation not supported mv: preserving ACL for `/n/scr01/test/test': Operation not supported mv: preserving permissions for `/n/scr01/test/test': Operation not supported If I move it to the local /tmp, I get no errors. 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] Disabling ZFS ACL
kevin kramer wrote: that is my thread and I'm still having issues even after applying that patch. It just came up again this week. [locahost] uname -a Linux dv-121-25.centtech.com 2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 #1 SMP Wed Mar 5 11:37:38 EST 2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [localhost] cat /etc/issue CentOS release 5 (Final) Kernel \r on an \m [localhost: /n/scr20] touch test [localhost: /n/scr20] mv test /n/scr01/test/ ** this is a UFS mount on FreeBSD mv: preserving permissions for `/n/scr01/test/test': Operation not supported mv: preserving ACL for `/n/scr01/test/test': Operation not supported mv: preserving permissions for `/n/scr01/test/test': Operation not supported Thats because the UFS mount doesn't support NFSv4 ACLs and 'mv' was unable to translate the ACL into an equivalent POSIX draft ACL. If I move it to the local /tmp, I get no errors. 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] Disabling ZFS ACL
Did you try mounting with nfs version 3? mount -o vers=3 On May 28, 2008, at 10:38 AM, kevin kramer wrote: that is my thread and I'm still having issues even after applying that patch. It just came up again this week. [locahost] uname -a Linux dv-121-25.centtech.com 2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 #1 SMP Wed Mar 5 11:37:38 EST 2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [localhost] cat /etc/issue CentOS release 5 (Final) Kernel \r on an \m [localhost: /n/scr20] touch test [localhost: /n/scr20] mv test /n/scr01/test/ ** this is a UFS mount on FreeBSD mv: preserving permissions for `/n/scr01/test/test': Operation not supported mv: preserving ACL for `/n/scr01/test/test': Operation not supported mv: preserving permissions for `/n/scr01/test/test': Operation not supported If I move it to the local /tmp, I get no errors. 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 Problems under vmware
Hello, I'm having the same exact situation on one VM, and not on another VM on the same infrastructure. The only difference is that on the failing VM I initially created the pool with a name and then changed the mountpoint to another name. Did you found a solution to the issue? Should I consider to get back to UFS on this infrastructure? Thanx a lot Gabriele. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs hangs after disk failure
At home I have an old ultra-60 running attached to a scsi shoebox with 6x18GB disks. I created the zpool as raidZ with one hot spare. Recently, one of the non hot spare disks failed and now zpool commands hang. Also, I/O to the pool just hangs for periods of time. I'm using release 0807 with latest patches as of around January. Is this fixed in a later patch? What can I do to fix this? I don't have another disk to replace the failed one with. Thanks. --Les This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] [blog post] Trying to corrupt data in a ZFS mirror
Hi guys, I wrote my first post about ZFS ( http://silveiraneto.net/2008/05/28/trying-to-corrupt-data-in-a-zfs-mirror/) showing how to create a pool with a mirror and so trying to corrupt the data. I used the Self Healing with ZFShttp://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/demos/selfheal/as base. I also did a screencast available on Youtube ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=C44tnu8bus4). Please take a look and if you found any mistake, comment on my blog. Thanks. -- --- silveiraneto.net eupodiatamatando.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
On May 28, 2008, at 05:11, James Andrewartha wrote: From what I can tell, all the vendors are only making SAS controllers for PCIe with more than 4 ports. Since SAS supports SATA, I guess they don't see much point in doing SATA-only controllers. For example, the LSI SAS3081E-R is $260 for 8 SAS ports on 8x PCIe, which is somewhat more expensive than the almost equivalent PCI-X LSI SAS3080X-R which is as low as $180. That's not a huge price difference when building a server - thanks for the pointer. Are there any 'gotchas' the list can offer when using a SAS card with SATA drives? I've been told that SATA drives can have a lower MTBF than SAS drives (by a guy working QA for BigDriveCo), but ZFS helps keep the I in RAID. For those downthread looking for full RAID controllers with battery backup RAM, Areca (who formerly specialised in SATA controlers) now do SAS RAID at reasonable prices, and have Solaris drivers. I've seen posts about misery with the sil and marvell drivers from about a year ago; is there a good way to pound an opensolaris driver to find its holes, in a ZFS context? On one hand I'd guess it shouldn't be too hard to simulate different kinds of loads, but on the other hand, if that were easy, the drivers' authors would have done that before unleashing buggy code on the masses. Thanks, -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 hangs after disk failure
J. Les Bemont wrote: At home I have an old ultra-60 running attached to a scsi shoebox with 6x18GB disks. I created the zpool as raidZ with one hot spare. Recently, one of the non hot spare disks failed and now zpool commands hang. Also, I/O to the pool just hangs for periods of time. I'm using release 0807 with latest patches as of around January. Is this fixed in a later patch? What can I do to fix this? I don't have another disk to replace the failed one with. It is patiently waiting. Try physically removing the bad disk, which will fail faster. More sophisticated fault management has been implemented in SXCE/OpenSolaris and should arrive in Solaris 10 update 6. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs hangs after disk failure
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: J. Les Bemont wrote: At home I have an old ultra-60 running attached to a scsi shoebox with 6x18GB disks. I created the zpool as raidZ with one hot spare. Recently, one of the non hot spare disks failed and now zpool commands hang. Also, I/O to the pool just hangs for periods of time. I'm using release 0807 with latest patches as of around January. Is this fixed in a later patch? What can I do to fix this? I don't have another disk to replace the failed one with. It is patiently waiting. Try physically removing the bad disk, which will fail faster. More sophisticated fault management has been implemented in SXCE/OpenSolaris and should arrive in Solaris 10 update 6. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss Is there a way to tell zfs to manually fail it vs. physically removing the drive? Having access to physically remove a disk isn't always possible :) --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
Bill McGonigle wrote: On May 28, 2008, at 05:11, James Andrewartha wrote: From what I can tell, all the vendors are only making SAS controllers for PCIe with more than 4 ports. Since SAS supports SATA, I guess they don't see much point in doing SATA-only controllers. For example, the LSI SAS3081E-R is $260 for 8 SAS ports on 8x PCIe, which is somewhat more expensive than the almost equivalent PCI-X LSI SAS3080X-R which is as low as $180. That's not a huge price difference when building a server - thanks for the pointer. Are there any 'gotchas' the list can offer when using a SAS card with SATA drives? I've been told that SATA drives can have a lower MTBF than SAS drives (by a guy working QA for BigDriveCo), but ZFS helps keep the I in RAID. There are BigDriveCos which sell enterprise-class SATA drives. Since the mechanics are the same, the difference is in the electronics and software. Vote with your pocketbook for the enterprise-class products. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
On May 28, 2008, at 10:27 AM 5/28/, Richard Elling wrote: Since the mechanics are the same, the difference is in the electronics In my very distant past, I did QA work for an electronic component manufacturer. Even parts which were identical were expected to behave quite differently ... based on population statistics. That is, the HighRel MilSpec parts were from batches with no failures (even under very harsh conditions beyond the normal operating mode, and all tests to destruction showed only the expected failure modes) and the hobbyist grade components were those whose cohort *failed* all the testing (and destructive testing could highlight abnormal failure modes). I don't know that drive builders do the same thing, but I'd kinda expect it. -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs hangs after disk failure
Tim wrote: On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: J. Les Bemont wrote: At home I have an old ultra-60 running attached to a scsi shoebox with 6x18GB disks. I created the zpool as raidZ with one hot spare. Recently, one of the non hot spare disks failed and now zpool commands hang. Also, I/O to the pool just hangs for periods of time. I'm using release 0807 with latest patches as of around January. Is this fixed in a later patch? What can I do to fix this? I don't have another disk to replace the failed one with. It is patiently waiting. Try physically removing the bad disk, which will fail faster. More sophisticated fault management has been implemented in SXCE/OpenSolaris and should arrive in Solaris 10 update 6. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org mailto:zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss Is there a way to tell zfs to manually fail it vs. physically removing the drive? Having access to physically remove a disk isn't always possible :) zpool offline -- richard ___ 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
I strongly agree most of the comments. I quess, I tried to keep it simple, perhaps a little bit too simple. If I am not mistaken ,most of the Nand disks will virtualize the underlying cells so even you update the same sector update will be made somewhere else. So the time to corrupt an enterprise grade SSD (nand based) will be quite long although I wouldn't recommend to keep the swap file or any sort of fast changing cache on those drives. Think that you have a 146 GB SSD and the wirte cycle is around 100k And you can write/update data at 10 MB/sec (depends on the IO pattern could be a lot slower or a lot higher) It will take 4 Hours or 14,400 sec's to fully populate the drive. Multiply this with 100k , this is 45 Years. If the virtualisation algorithmws work at %25 efficiency this will be 10 years plus. And if I am not mistaken all enterprise NAnds and most consumer Nands do read after write verify and they will mark bad blocks. This will also increase the usable time as you will not be marking a whole device failed , just a cell... Please correct me where I am wrong , as I am not quite knowledgeble on this subject Mertol Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212335 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn Sent: 27 Mayıs 2008 Salı 18:55 To: Mertol Ozyoney Cc: 'ZFS Discuss' Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08 On Mon, 26 May 2008, Mertol Ozyoney wrote: It's true that NAND based falsh's wear out under heavy load. Regular consumer grade nand drives will wear out the extra cells pretty rapidly. (in a year or so) However enterprise grade SSD disks are fine tuned to with stand continous writes for more than 10 years It is incorrect to classify wear in terms of years without also specifying update behavior. NAND FLASH sectors can withstand 100,000 to (sometimes) 1,000,000 write-erase-cycles. In normal filesystem use, there are far more reads than writes and the size of the storage device is much larger than the the data re-written. Even in server use, only a small fraction of the data is updated. A device used to cache writes will be written to as often as it is read from (or perhaps more often). If the cache device storage is fully occupied, then wear leveling algorithms based on statistics do not have much opportunity to work. If the underlying device sectors are good for 100,000 write-erase-cycles and the entire device is re-written once per second, then the device is not going to last very long (27 hours). Of course the write performance for these devices is quite poor (8-120MB/second) and the write performace seems to be proportional to the total storage size so it is quite unlikely that you could re-write a suitably performant device once per second. The performance of FLASH SSDs does not seem very appropriate for use as a write cache device. There is a useful guide to these devices at http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-buyers-guide.html;. SRAM-based cache devices which plug into a PCI-X or PCI-Express slot seem far more appropriate for use as a write cache than a slow SATA device. At least 5X or 10X the performance is available by this means. 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 ___ 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
By the way. All enterprise SSD's have internal Dram based cache. Some vendors may quote the write performance of the internal RAM device. Normally Nand drives due to read after write operations and several other reasons will not perform quite good under write based load. Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212335 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn Sent: 27 Mayıs 2008 Salı 20:22 To: Tim Cc: ZFS Discuss Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08 On Tue, 27 May 2008, Tim wrote: You're still concentrating on consumer level drives. The stec drives emc is using for instance, exhibit none of the behaviors you describe. How long have you been working for STEC? ;-) Looking at the specifications for STEC SSDs I see that they are very good at IOPS (probably many times faster than the Solaris I/O stack). Write performance of the fastest product (ZEUS iops) is similar to a typical SAS hard drive, with the remaining products being much slower. This all that STEC has to say about FLASH lifetime in their products: http://www.stec-inc.com/technology/flash_life_support.php;. There are no hard facts to be found there. The STEC SSDs are targeted towards being a replacement for a traditional hard drive. There is no mention of lifetime when used as a write-intensive cache device. 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 ___ 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 Wed, 28 May 2008, Mertol Ozyoney wrote: Think that you have a 146 GB SSD and the wirte cycle is around 100k And you can write/update data at 10 MB/sec (depends on the IO pattern could be a lot slower or a lot higher) It will take 4 Hours or 14,400 sec's to fully populate the drive. Multiply this with 100k , this is 45 Years. If the virtualisation algorithmws work at %25 efficiency this will be 10 years plus. Please correct me where I am wrong , as I am not quite knowledgeble on this subject It seems that we are in agreement that expected lifetime depends on the usage model. Lifetime will be vastly longer if the drive is used as a normal filesystem disk as compared to being using as a RAID write cache device. I have not heard of any RAID arrays which use FLASH for their write cache. They all use battery backed SRAM (or similar). 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] ZFS Project Hardware
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 10:34 -0600, Keith Bierman wrote: On May 28, 2008, at 10:27 AM 5/28/, Richard Elling wrote: Since the mechanics are the same, the difference is in the electronics In my very distant past, I did QA work for an electronic component manufacturer. Even parts which were identical were expected to behave quite differently ... based on population statistics. That is, the HighRel MilSpec parts were from batches with no failures (even under very harsh conditions beyond the normal operating mode, and all tests to destruction showed only the expected failure modes) and the hobbyist grade components were those whose cohort *failed* all the testing (and destructive testing could highlight abnormal failure modes). I don't know that drive builders do the same thing, but I'd kinda expect it. Seagate's ES.2 has a higher MBTF than the equivalent consumer drive, so you're probably right. Western Digital's RE2 series (which my work uses) comes with a 5 year warranty, compared to 3 years for the consumer versions. The RE2 also have firmware with Time-Limited Error Recovery, which reports errors promptly, letting the higher-level RAID do data recovery. Both have improved vibration tolerance through firmware tweaks. And if you want 10krpm, I think WD's VelociRaptor counts. http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13732 http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13253 http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/14583 http://www.storagereview.com/ is promising some SSD benchmarks soon. James Andrewartha ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS sharing options for Windows
Hello, I am fairly new to Solaris and ZFS. I am testing both out in a sandbox at work. I am playing with virtual machines running on a windows front-end that connects to a zfs back-end for its data needs. As far as i know my two options are sharesmb and shareiscsci for data sharing. I have a couple questions about which way I should go. Is there a performance increase by using iSCSI? If I go with iSCSI will I have to then format NTFS on the Windows iSCSI disk? I would want the ability to create snapshots of the virtual disks, If I have to format the iSCSI target with NTFS on the windows machine ZFS would not see the individual files correct? Again this is new territory for me and I have been doing a lot of reading. Thanks in advance for any input. P.S. I know this is not an ideal situation for VM or storage, but it is what I have been given to work with. 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 Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are BigDriveCos which sell enterprise-class SATA drives. Since the mechanics are the same, the difference is in the electronics and software. Vote with your pocketbook for the enterprise-class products. CMU released a study comparing the MTBF enterprise class drive with consumer drives, and found no real differences. From the study: In our data sets, the replacement rates of SATA disks are not worse than the replacement rates of SCSI or FC disks. This may indicate that disk-independent factors, such as operating conditions, usage and environmental factors affect replacement rates more than component specific factors. Google has also released a similar study on drive reliability. Google's sample size is considerably larger than CMU's as well. There's a blurb here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6376021.stm Full results here: http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf -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] ZFS Project Hardware
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Brandon High wrote: CMU released a study comparing the MTBF enterprise class drive with consumer drives, and found no real differences. That should really not be a surprise. Chips are chips and in the economies of scale, as few chips will be be used as possible. The quality of manufacture could vary, but this is likely more dependent on the manufacturer than the product line. Manufacturers who produce crummy products don't last very long. True enterprise drives (SCSA, SAS, FC) have much lower media read error rates by an factor of 10 and more tolerance to vibration and temperature. They also have much lower storage capacity and much better seek and I/O performance. Failure to read a block is not a failure of the drive so this won't be considered by any study which only considers drive replacement. SATA enterprise drives seem more like a gimmick than anything else. Perhaps the warranty is longer and they include a tiny bit more smarts in the firmware. 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] ZFS Project Hardware
http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/adaptec_webinar_on_disks_and -- richard Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Wed, 28 May 2008, Brandon High wrote: CMU released a study comparing the MTBF enterprise class drive with consumer drives, and found no real differences. That should really not be a surprise. Chips are chips and in the economies of scale, as few chips will be be used as possible. The quality of manufacture could vary, but this is likely more dependent on the manufacturer than the product line. Manufacturers who produce crummy products don't last very long. True enterprise drives (SCSA, SAS, FC) have much lower media read error rates by an factor of 10 and more tolerance to vibration and temperature. They also have much lower storage capacity and much better seek and I/O performance. Failure to read a block is not a failure of the drive so this won't be considered by any study which only considers drive replacement. SATA enterprise drives seem more like a gimmick than anything else. Perhaps the warranty is longer and they include a tiny bit more smarts in the firmware. 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 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Create ZFS now, add mirror later
Is there a way to to a create a zfs file system (e.g. zpool create boot /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1) Then, (after vacating the old boot disk) add another device and make the zpool a mirror? (as in: zpool create boot mirror /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1 /dev/dsk/c1t0d0s1) Thanks! emike 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] Create ZFS now, add mirror later
E. Mike Durbin wrote: Is there a way to to a create a zfs file system (e.g. zpool create boot /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1) Then, (after vacating the old boot disk) add another device and make the zpool a mirror? zpool attach -- richard (as in: zpool create boot mirror /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1 /dev/dsk/c1t0d0s1) Thanks! emike 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
[zfs-discuss] ZFS locking up! Bug in ZFS, device drivers or time for mobo RMA?
Greetings all. I am facing serious problems running ZFS on a storage server assembled out of commodity hardware that is supposed to be Solaris compatible. Although I am quite familiar with Linux distros and other unices, I am new to Solaris so any suggestions are highly appreciated. First I tried SXDE 1/08 creating the following pool: -bash-3.2# zpool status -v tank pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM tankONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c6t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors All went well until I tried pulling files from the server to another machine running 64bit Vista Ultimate SP1 via its build in NFS client. After copying cca. 100 of them (split archives all 100MB in size, i.e. cca. 10GB of data) I always get an The semaphore timeout period has expired. error. The machines are currently connected by a 1Gbps switch, but I have tried several other devices as well (some supporting only 100Mbps). When this happens, Solaris is still responsive but any zpool command I try locks up. E.g. zpool status tank would write just the following pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested and then lock up. This gives me the impression that after several minutes of usage, the ZFS subsystem on the machine locks up and anything that tries to touch it locks up as well. The only way I found to make the server run again would be a hardware reset. Software reboot/shutdown locks up as well. Another possibly related problem I had was that instead of or in addition to this lock up, ZFS degraded my pool considering one of the discs as faulty. Always the same one, regardless of the port it was plugged in. The weird thing is though that the disc appears to be perfectly functional. Running the thorough Samsung ESTOOL diagnostic on it many times discovered no problems. Cleaning the errors and scrubbing the pool would make it operational again, at least for a while. I have replaced the SXDE with OpenSolaris 2008.05 but it didnt seem to affect these problems at all. I bought more discs hoping that replacing the faulting one would solve the problems. Unfortunately it did not solve all of them. The array doesnt degrade due to a faulting disc anymore, but ZFS still seems to be locking up after several minutes of usage. Thanks in advance for any suggestions how to best approach these problems. Server HW: Mobo: MSI K9N Diamond CPU:Athlon 64 X2 5200+ Mem:Corsair TWIN2x4096-6400C4DHX PSU:Corsair HX620W Case: ThermalTake Armor+ GFX:MSI N9600GT-T2D1G-OC HDDs: Spinpoint F1 HD103UJ (1TB, 32MB, 7200rpm, SATA2) All HDDs are the same model. The machine is not overclocked. 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] Create ZFS now, add mirror later
E. Mike Durbin wrote: Is there a way to to a create a zfs file system (e.g. zpool create boot /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1) Then, (after vacating the old boot disk) add another device and make the zpool a mirror? zpool attach -- richard (as in: zpool create boot mirror /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1 /dev/dsk/c1t0d0s1) Thanks! emike Thanks, but for starters, where is the best place to find info like this (i.e., the easiest to get started on zfs)? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
