Re: [zfs-discuss] [osol-help] 1TB ZFS thin provisioned partition prevents Opensolaris from booting.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Akhilesh Mritunjai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it's right. You'd have to move to a 64 bit kernel. Any reasons to stick to a 32 bit kernel ? My reason would be lack of 64bit hardware :( Is this an iscsi specific limitation? or will any multi-TB pool have problems on 32bit hardware? If so whats the upper bound to pool size on 32bit? -- Hugh Saunders ___ 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 Sat, May 24, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. In this case (or in any other case where a cache device is used), does the cache improve write performance or only reads? I presume it cannot increase write performance as the cache is considered volatile, so the write couldn't be committed until the data had left the cache device? From the ZFS admin guide [1] Using cache devices provide the greatest performance improvement for random read-workloads of mostly static content. I'm not sure if that means no performance increase for writes, or just not very much? [1]http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-2271/gaynr?a=view -- Hugh Saunders ___ 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 Sat, May 24, 2008 at 4:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cache improve write performance or only reads? L2ARC cache device is for reads... for write you want Intent Log Thanks for answering my question, I had seen mention of intent log devices, but wasn't sure of their purpose. If only one significantly faster disk is available, would it make sense to slice it and use a slice for L2ARC and a slice for ZIL? or would that cause horrible thrashing? -- Hugh Saunders ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs raidz2 configuration mistake
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Claus Guttesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: zpool add -f external c12t0d0p0 zpool add -f external c13t0d0p0 (it wouldn't work without -f, and I believe that's because the fs was online) No, it had nothing to do with the pool being online. It was because a single disk was being added to a pool with raidz2. The error message that zpool would have displayed, without the -f, is something like: 'mismatched replication level'. By using the -f the files are now striping among three vdevs: the original raidz2, and each of the new disks. Aren't one supposed to be able to add more disks to an existing raidz(2) pool and have the data spread all disks in the pool automagically? In my understanding, the raidz level applies to the vdev, not the pool. vdevs can be added to the pool, then dynamic striping, distributes data between them. -- Hugh Saunders ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
