Just chipping in with my 2c, it might not be a great help though.
First of all, it sounds to me like this might be a hardware fault. That
motherboard and controller combination are listed on Sun's HCL so should work
fine:
http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/data/systems/details/8454.html
The
I'm new so opensolaris and very new to ZFS. In the past we have always used
linux for our database backends.
So now we are looking for a new database server to give us a big performance
boost, and also the possibility for scalability.
Our current database consists mainly of a huge table
Christiaan Willemsen wrote:
...
And that is exactly where ZFS comes in, at least as far as I read.
The question is: how can we maximize IO by using the best possible
combination of hardware and ZFS RAID?
...
For what I read, mirroring and striping should get me better performance
than
On Monday 30 June 2008 11:14:10 James C. McPherson wrote:
Christiaan Willemsen wrote:
...
And that is exactly where ZFS comes in, at least as far as I
read.
The question is: how can we maximize IO by using the best
possible combination of hardware and ZFS RAID?
...
For what I
I wanted to resurrect an old dual P3 system with a couple of IDE drives
to use as a low power quiet NIS/DHCP/FlexLM server so I tried installing
ZFS boot from build 90.
Jun 28 16:09:19 zack scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: /[EMAIL
PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christiaan,
As ZFS tuning has already been suggested, remember:
a) Never tune unless you need to.
b) Never tune unless you have an untuned benchmark set of figures to
compare against after the system has been tuned - especially in ZFS-land
which, whilst it may not be quite there, is designed
Christiaan,
As ZFS tuning has already been suggested, remember:
a) Never tune unless you need to.
b) Never tune unless you have an untuned benchmark
set of figures to
compare against after the system has been tuned -
especially in ZFS-land
which, whilst it may not be quite there, is
Hi Darren,
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jan Damborsky wrote:
Thank you very much all for this valuable input.
Based on the collected information, I would take
following approach as far as calculating size of
swap and dump devices on ZFS volumes in Caiman
installer is concerned.
[1] Following
jan damborsky wrote:
I think it is necessary to have some absolute minimum
and not allow installer to proceed if user doesn't
provide at least minimum required, as we have to make
sure that installation doesn't fail because of space
issues.
I very strongly disagree.
Neither swap or dump are
Darren J Moffat wrote:
jan damborsky wrote:
I think it is necessary to have some absolute minimum
and not allow installer to proceed if user doesn't
provide at least minimum required, as we have to make
sure that installation doesn't fail because of space
issues.
I very strongly disagree.
Another thing: what about a seperate disk (or disk set) for the ZIL?
Would it be worth sacrificing two SAS disks for two SSD disks in raid 1
handling the ZIL?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
This is a bit of a sidebar to the discussion about getting the
best performance for PostgreSQL from ZFS, but may affect
you if you're doing sequential scans through the 70GB table
or its segments.
ZFS copy-on-write results in tables' contents being spread across
the full width of their
Ok, replying with the details of what I've found so far.
First of all, SSD devices, despite high published IOPS figures hide very poor
IOPS *write* figures. I've been sent the manual for the Mtron Pro 7000 series
SSD's, and while they have random read figures in the 12,000 range, the random
Hi Mike,
Mike Gerdts wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Jan Damborsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thank you very much all for this valuable input.
Based on the collected information, I would take
following approach as far as calculating size of
swap and dump devices on ZFS volumes in
Christiaan,
So right now, I'm not babling about some ZFS tuning setting, but about the
advantages and disadvantages of using ZFS, hardware raid, or a combination of
the two.
I never accused you of babbling, I opened my response with As ZFS
tuning has already been suggested; and gave some
I bought similar kit from them, but when I received the machine,
uninstalled, I looked at the install manual for the Areca card and
found that it's a manual driver add that is documented to
_occasionally hang_ and you have to _kill it off manually_ if it does.
I'm really not having that in a
Hmm. That's kind of sad. I grabbed the latest Areca drivers and haven't had a
speck of trouble. Was the driver revision specified in the docs you read the
latest one?
Flash boot does seem nice in a way, since Solaris writes to the boot volume so
seldom on a machine that has enough RAM to
I agree - I am just thinking, if it is fine in general to allow
normal non-experienced user (who is the target audience for Slim
installer) to run system without swap. To be honest, I don't know,
since I am not very experienced in this area.
If people agree that this is not issue at all, I
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:19 AM, jan damborsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Mike,
Mike Gerdts wrote:
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Jan Damborsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thank you very much all for this valuable input.
Based on the collected information, I would take
following
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Ross wrote:
The Gigabyte iRAM looks great. £100 for the basic unit, around £200
fully populated with 4GB.
I am not sure that i would want to entrust my data to a product which
contains no error checking/correction at all and loses its memory
after a day if the computer
Hi--
You can replace the failed disk and then detach the spare using the
general scenario described below. Some steps might be optional but I'm
pretty cautious about disk replacement, even when its this easy.
Cindy
1. Physically replace the failed disk.
2. Let ZFS know that you replaced the
I'll probably be having 16 Seagate 15K5 SAS disks,
150 GB each. Two in HW raid1 for the OS, two in HW
raid 1 or 10 for the transaction log. The OS does not
need to be on ZFS, but could be.
Whatever you do, DO NOT mix zfs and HW RAID.
ZFS likes to handle redundancy all by itself. It's much
This Areca card is Solaris Certified (so says the HCL) and not that expensive:
http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/data/components/details/1179.html
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Christiaan Willemsen wrote:
I'm new so opensolaris and very new to ZFS. In the past we have always used
linux for our database backends.
So now we are looking for a new database server to give us a big performance
boost, and also the possibility for scalability.
Our current database
Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
I'll probably be having 16 Seagate 15K5 SAS disks,
150 GB each. Two in HW raid1 for the OS, two in HW
raid 1 or 10 for the transaction log. The OS does not
need to be on ZFS, but could be.
Whatever you do, DO NOT mix zfs and HW RAID.
I disagree. There
David Collier-Brown wrote:
ZFS copy-on-write results in tables' contents being spread across
the full width of their stripe, which is arguably a good thing
for transaction processing performance (or at least can be), but
makes sequential table-scan speed degrade.
If you're doing
Hello Roch,
Saturday, June 28, 2008, 11:25:17 AM, you wrote:
RB I suspect, a single dd is cpu bound.
I don't think so.
Se below one with a stripe of 48x disks again. Single dd with 1024k
block size and 64GB to write.
bash-3.2# zpool iostat 1
capacity operations
Thanks. I have another spare so I replaced with that and it put the used spare
back to spare status.
I assume at this point once I replace the failed disk I just need to let
solaris see the change and then add it back into the pool as a spare (to
replace the spare I took out and used in the
Neither swap or dump are mandatory for running Solaris.
Dump is mandatory in the sense that losing crash dumps is criminal.
Swap is more complex. It's certainly not mandatory. Not so long ago,
swap was typically larger than physical memory. But in recent years,
we've essentially moved to a
Hello Robert,
Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 12:01:03 AM, you wrote:
RM Nevertheless the main issu is jumpy writing...
I was just wondering how much thruoughput I can get running multiple
dd - one per disk drive and what kind of aggregated throughput I would
get.
So for each out of 48 disks I did:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 04:19:15PM -0700, Jeff Bonwick wrote:
(2) In a virtualized environment, a better way to get a crash dump
would be to snapshot the VM. This would require a little bit
of host/guest cooperation, in that the installer (or dumpadm)
would have to know that it's
Using ZFS to mirror two hardware RAID-5 LUNs is actually quite nice.
Because the data is mirrored at the ZFS level, you get all the benefits
of self-healing. Moreover, you can survive a great variety of hardware
failures: three or more disks can die (one in the first array, two or
more in the
When a block is freed as part of transaction group N, it can be reused
in transaction group N+1. There's at most a one-txg (few-second) delay.
Jeff
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 01:02:53PM -0400, Torrey McMahon wrote:
I'm doing some simple testing of ZFS block reuse and was wondering when
deferred
By the looks of things, I don't think that I will have any answers.
So the moral of the story is (if your data is valuable):
1 - Never trust your hardware or software, unless it's fully redundant.
2 - ALWAYS have an external backup
because, even in best of times, SHIT HAPPENS.
This
Christophe Dupre wrote:
Tim,
the system is a Silicon Mechanics A266; the motherboard is a
SuperMicro H8DM8E-2
I tried pluging the Marvell card in both 133MHz PCI-X slots. In one I
get a lockup during install, in the other I get a reset on first boot.
Just a shot in the dark, but is it
Jeff Bonwick wrote:
Using ZFS to mirror two hardware RAID-5 LUNs is actually quite nice.
Because the data is mirrored at the ZFS level, you get all the benefits
of self-healing. Moreover, you can survive a great variety of hardware
failures: three or more disks can die (one in the first
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you got more details or at least bug ids?
Is it only (I dboubt) fc related?
I ran into something that looks like
6594621 dangling dbufs (dn=ff056a5ad0a8, dbuf=ff0520303300)
during stress
with LDoms 1.0.
37 matches
Mail list logo
