The drive (c7t2d0)is bad and should be replaced. The second drive
(c7t5d0) is either bad or going bad. This is exactly the kind of
problem that can force a Thumper to it knees, ZFS performance is
horrific, and as soon as you drop the bad disks things magicly return to
normal.
My first
Hi Ben,
The drive (c7t2d0)is bad and should be replaced.
The second drive (c7t5d0) is either bad or going bad.
Dagnabbit. I'm glad you told me this, but I would have thought that running a
scrub would have alerted me to some fault?
and as soon as you drop the bad disks things
- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us skrev:
On Sat, 8 May 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
A vast majority of the time, the opposite is true. Most of the
time, having
swap available increases performance. Because the kernel is able to
choose:
Should I swap out this idle
- Giovanni giof...@gmail.com skrev:
Hi,
Were you ever able to solve this problem on your AOC-SAT2-MV8 card? I
am in need of purchasing it to add more drives to my server.
What problem was this? I have two servers with these cards and the work well
Best regards
roy
--
Roy Sigurd
From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us]
On Sat, 8 May 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
A vast majority of the time, the opposite is true. Most of the time,
having
swap available increases performance. Because the kernel is able to
choose:
Should I swap out this
From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us]
On Sat, 8 May 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
A vast majority of the time, the opposite is true. Most of the time,
having
swap available increases performance. Because the kernel is able to
choose:
Should I swap out this
I'm answering my own question, having just decided to try it. Yes, anything you
want to persist beyond reboot with EON that's not in the zfs pools has to have
an image update done before shutdown.
I had this Doh! moment after I did the trial. Of course all the system config
has to be on the
Additionally, I would like to mention that the only ZFS filesystem not
mounting -- causing the entire zpool import backup command to hang,
is the only filesystem configured to be exported via NFS:
backup/insightiq sharenfs root=* local
Is there any chance the NFS
On Sun, 9 May 2010, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Are you sure about this? It is always good to be sure ...
This is the case with most OSes now. Swap out stuff early, perhaps
keep it in RAM and swap at the same time, and the kernel can choose
what to do later. In Linux you can set it in
On May 8, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Tony wrote:
Ok, this is definitely the kind of feedback I was looking for. I'll have
to check out the docs on these technologies it looks like. Appreciate it.
I figured I would load balance the hosts with a Cisco device, since I can get
around the IOS ok.
Okay, so after some test with dedup on snv_134. I decided we can not to use
dedup feature for the time being.
While unable to destroy a dedupped file system. I decided to migrate the file
system to another pool then destroy the pool. (see below)
On May 9, 2010, at 6:30 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us skrev:
On Sat, 8 May 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
A vast majority of the time, the opposite is true. Most of the
time, having
swap available increases performance. Because the
On May 9, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Jim Horng wrote:
Okay, so after some test with dedup on snv_134. I decided we can not to use
dedup feature for the time being.
While unable to destroy a dedupped file system. I decided to migrate the
file system to another pool then destroy the pool. (see
size of snapshot?
r...@filearch1:/var/adm# zfs list mpool/export/projects/project1...@today
NAMEUSED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
mpool/export/projects/project1...@today 0 - 407G -
r...@filearch1:/var/adm# zfs list
Hello,
I see strange behaviour when qualifying disk drives for ZFS. The tests I want
to run should make sure that the drives honour the cache flush command. For
this I do the following:
1) Create singe disk pools (only one disk in the pool)
2) Perorm I/O on the pools
This is done via SQLIte
I know that according to the documentation Solaris is supposed to be
fully operational in the absences of swap devices. However, I've experienced
cases which I have not been able to trace the root cause of yet where the disk
access has increased drastically and caused the system to hang but it
On Sat, May 8 at 23:39, Ben Rockwood wrote:
The drive (c7t2d0)is bad and should be replaced. The second drive
(c7t5d0) is either bad or going bad. This is exactly the kind of
problem that can force a Thumper to it knees, ZFS performance is
horrific, and as soon as you drop the bad disks
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
solar...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Richard Elling
For a storage server, swap is not needed. If you notice swap being used
then your storage
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 09:24:38PM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:
The best thing to do with processes that can be swapped out forever is
to not run them.
Agreed, however:
#1 Shorter values of forever (like, say, daily) may still be useful.
#2 This relies on knowing in advance what these processes
On Sun, 9 May 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
So, Bob, rub it in if you wish. ;-) I was wrong. I knew the behavior in
Linux, which Roy seconded as most OSes, and apparently we both assumed the
same here, but that was wrong. I don't know if solaris and opensolaris both
have the same swap
I am using ZFS as the backing store for an iscsi target running a virtual
machine.
I am looking at using 8K block size on the zfs volume.
I was looking at the comstar iscsi settings and there is also a blk size
configuration, which defaults as 512 bytes. That would make me believe that
21 matches
Mail list logo
