On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 06:09:34PM -0700, Marion Hakanson wrote:
Greetings,
Has anyone out there built a 1-petabyte pool? I've been asked to look
into this, and was told low performance is fine, workload is likely
to be write-once, read-occasionally, archive storage of gene sequencing
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 06:31:11PM -0700, Marion Hakanson wrote:
rvandol...@esri.com said:
We've come close:
admin@mes-str-imgnx-p1:~$ zpool list
NAME SIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT
datapool 978T 298T 680T30% 1.00x ONLINE -
syspool278G 104G
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 03:08:04PM -0500, Peter Tripp wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm in the market for a couple of JBODs. Up until now I've been
relatively lucky with finding hardware that plays very nicely with
ZFS. All my gear currently in production uses LSI SAS controllers
(3801e, 9200-16e,
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 07:35:45AM -0700, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson
System is a 240x2TB (7200RPM) system in 20 Dell MD1200 JBODs. 16 vdevs of
15
disks each -- RAIDZ3
I'm trying to run some IOzone benchmarking on a new system to get a
feel for baseline performance.
Unfortunately, the system has a lot of memory (144GB), but I have some
time so am approaching my runs as follows:
Throughput:
iozone -m -t 8 -T -r 128k -o -s 36G -R -b bigfile.xls
IOPS:
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 03:21:05AM -0700, Gary Driggs wrote:
On May 1, 2012, at 1:41 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
Throughput:
iozone -m -t 8 -T -r 128k -o -s 36G -R -b bigfile.xls
IOPS:
iozone -O -i 0 -i 1 -i 2 -e -+n -r 128K -s 288G iops.txt
Do you expect to be reading
On Tue, May 01, 2012 at 07:18:18AM -0700, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
I'm trying to run some IOzone benchmarking on a new system to get a
feel for baseline performance.
Unfortunately, benchmarking with IOzone is a very poor indicator of
what
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 05:48:57AM -0700, Paul Archer wrote:
This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but
recently several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was
only acceptable for production use on FreeBSD (or Solaris, of course)
rather than Linux with ZoL.
Hi all;
We have a Solaris 10 U9 x86 instance running on Silicon Mechanics /
SuperMicro hardware.
Occasionally under high load (ZFS scrub for example), the box becomes
non-responsive (it continues to respond to ping but nothing else works
-- not even the local console). Our only solution is to
).
There are two internally mounted Intel X-25E's -- these double as the
rootpool and ZIL devices.
There is an 80GB X-25M mounted to the expander along with the 1TB
drives operating as L2ARC.
On Jan 10, 2012, at 21:07, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
Hi all;
We have a Solaris 10 U9 x86
We are looking at building a storage platform based on Dell HW + ZFS
(likely Nexenta).
Going Dell because they can provide solid HW support globally.
Are any of you using the MD1200 JBOD with head units *without* an
MD3200 in front? We are being told that the MD1200's won't daisy
chain unless
;
Yep, we are doing this. Just trying to sanity check the suggested
config against what folks are doing in the wild as our Dell partner
doesn't seem to think it should/can be done without the MD3200. They
may have alterior motives of course. :)
Thanks,
Ray
On 6 Jan 2012, at 01:28, Ray Van Dolson
for the pointer.
Ray
On Dec 30, 2011, at 2:03, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:59:04PM -0800, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com
wrote:
Is there a non-disruptive way to undeduplicate everything
Thanks for you response, Richard.
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 09:52:17AM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
On Dec 29, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
Hi all;
We have a dev box running NexentaStor Community Edition 3.1.1 w/ 24GB
(we don't run dedupe on production boxes -- and we do pay
Hi all;
We have a dev box running NexentaStor Community Edition 3.1.1 w/ 24GB
(we don't run dedupe on production boxes -- and we do pay for Nexenta
licenses on prd as well) RAM and an 8.5TB pool with deduplication
enabled (1.9TB or so in use). Dedupe ratio is only 1.26x.
The box has an
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:59:04PM -0800, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
Is there a non-disruptive way to undeduplicate everything and expunge
the DDT?
AFAIK, no
zfs send/recv and then back perhaps (we have the extra
We're setting up ZFS in front of an MD3000i (and attached MD1000
expansion trays).
The rule of thumb is to let ZFS manage all of the disks, so we wanted
to expose each MD3000i spindle via a JBOD mode of some sort.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the MD3000i this (though this[1]
post seems to
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:46:42PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Markus Kovero markus.kov...@nebula.fi
wrote:
Hi, I was wondering do you guys have any recommendations as replacement for
Intel X25-E as it is being EOL’d? Mainly as for log device.
The Intel
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:21:26PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
It seems to perform similarly to the X-25E as well (3300 IOPS for
random writes). Perhaps the drive can be overprovisioned as well?
My impression
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:34:09PM -0700, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Brandon High wrote:
The 20GB 311 only costs ~ $100 though. The 100GB Intel 710 costs ~ $650.
The 311 is a good choice for home or budget users, and it seems that
the 710 is much bigger than it needs to
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 06:53:22PM -0700, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson
For ZIL, I
suppose we could get the 300GB drive and overcommit to 95%!
What kind of benefit does
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 01:38:36PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL? It's MLC based, but I
understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up
significantly
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:17:38PM -0700, Cooper Hubbell wrote:
Which 320 series drive are you targeting, specifically? The ~$100
80GB variant should perform as well as the more expensive versions if
your workload is more random from what I've seen/read.
ESX NFS-attached datastore activity.
Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL? It's MLC based, but I
understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up
significantly by increasing the overprovisioning to 20% (dropping
usable capacity to 80%).
Anyone have experience with this?
Ray
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 01:10:07PM -0700, Ian Collins wrote:
On 08/12/11 08:00 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
Are any of you using the Intel 320 as ZIL? It's MLC based, but I
understand its wear and performance characteristics can be bumped up
significantly by increasing the overprovisioning
Is there a way to tweak the HPA (Host Protected Area) on an Intel 320
SSD using native Solaris commands?
In this case, we'd like to shrink the usable space so as to improve
performance per recommendation in Intel Solid-State Drive 320 Series
in Server Storage Applications section 4.1.
hdparm on
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 11:19:25AM -0700, Josh Simon wrote:
I don't believe this to be the reason since there are other SATA
(single-port) SSD drives listed as approved in that same document.
Upon further research I found some interesting links that may point to a
potentially different
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 11:39:13AM -0700, Donald Stahl wrote:
Yup; reset storms affected us as well (we were using the X-25 series
for ZIL/L2ARC). Only the ZIL drives were impacted, but it was a large
impact :)
What did you see with your reset storm? Were there log errors in
We recently had a disk fail on one of our whitebox (SuperMicro) ZFS
arrays (Solaris 10 U9).
The disk began throwing errors like this:
May 5 04:33:44 dev-zfs4 scsi: [ID 243001 kern.warning] WARNING:
/pci@0,0/pci8086,3410@9/pci15d9,400@0 (mpt_sas0):
May 5 04:33:44 dev-zfs4
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 02:42:40PM -0700, Jim Klimov wrote:
In a recent post r-mexico wrote that they had to parse system
messages and manually fail the drives on a similar, though
different, occasion:
http://opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=515815#515815
Thanks Jim, good
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 03:57:28PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
My question is -- is there a way to tune the MPT driver or even ZFS
itself to be more/less aggressive on what it sees as a failure
scenario?
You didn't
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:49:03PM -0700, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms]
That's patently false. VM images are the absolute best use-case for dedup
outside of backup workloads. I'm not sure who told you/where you got the
idea that VM images are not ripe
Have a failed drive on a ZFS pool (three RAIDZ2 vdevs, one hot spare).
The hot spare kicked in and all is well.
Is it possible to just make that hot spare disk -- already silvered
into the pool -- as a permanent part of the pool? We could then throw
in a new disk and mark it as a spare and avoid
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 03:13:06PM -0700, TianHong Zhao wrote:
Just detach the faulty disk, then the spare will become the normal
disk once it's finished resilvering.
#zfs detach pool fault_device_name
Then you need to the new spare :
#zfs add pool new_spare_device
There seems to be a
There are a number of threads (this one[1] for example) that describe
memory requirements for deduplication. They're pretty high.
I'm trying to get a better understanding... on our NetApps we use 4K
block sizes with their post-process deduplication and get pretty good
dedupe ratios for VM
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:29:06PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 5/4/2011 9:57 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
There are a number of threads (this one[1] for example) that describe
memory requirements for deduplication. They're pretty high.
I'm trying to get a better understanding... on our
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:55:55PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
I suspect that NetApp does the following to limit their resource
usage: they presume the presence of some sort of cache that can be
dedicated
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 03:49:12PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 5/4/2011 2:54 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:29:06PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
(2) Block size: a 4k block size will yield better dedup than a 128k
block size, presuming reasonable data turnover
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:51:36PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 5/4/2011 4:44 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com
wrote:
On 5/4/2011 4:14 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:55:55PM
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:33:58AM -0700, Jim Mauro wrote:
With ZFS, Solaris 10 Update 9, is it possible to
detach configured log devices from a zpool?
I have a zpool with 3 F20 mirrors for the ZIL. They're
coming up corrupted. I want to detach them, remake
the devices and reattach them to
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 08:03:42AM -0800, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Hi
I'm running OpenSolaris 148 on a few boxes, and newer boxes are
getting installed as we speak. What would you suggest for a good SLOG
device? It seems some new PCI-E-based ones are hitting the market,
but will those
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 09:56:35AM -0800, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
a) do you need an SLOG at all? Some workloads (asynchronous ones) will
never benefit from an SLOG.
We're planning to use this box for CIFS/NFS, so we'll need an SLOG to
speed things up.
b) form factor. at least one
I'm troubleshooting an existing Solaris 10U9 server (x86 whitebox) and
noticed its device names are extremely hair -- very similar to the
multipath device names: c0t5000C50026F8ACAAd0, etc, etc.
mpathadm seems to confirm:
# mpathadm list lu
/dev/rdsk/c0t50015179591CE0C1d0s2
in the kernel you have storage multipathing
enabled. (Check with modinfo.)
On 2/15/2011 3:53 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
I'm troubleshooting an existing Solaris 10U9 server (x86 whitebox) and
noticed its device names are extremely hair -- very similar to the
multipath device names
it doesn't matter if the system is rebooted.
ZFS should be able to identify the devices by their internal device
IDs but I can't speak for unknown hardware. When you make hardware
changes, always have current backups.
Thanks,
Cindy
On 02/15/11 14:32, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
Thanks Torrey
I just replaced a failing disk on one of my servers running Solaris 10
U9. The system was MPxIO enabled and I now have the old device hanging
around in the cfgadm list.
I understand from searching around that cfgadm may not be MPxIO aware
-- at least not in Solaris 10. I see a fix was pushed to
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 09:18:26AM -0800, David E. Anderson wrote:
I see that Pinguy OS, an uber-Ubuntu o/s, includes native ZFS support.
Any pointers to more info on this?
Probably using this[1].
Ray
[1] http://kqstor.com/
___
zfs-discuss mailing
currently.
Ray
-- Forwarded message --
From: C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org
Date: 2011/2/12
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] native ZFS on Linux
To:
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 09:18:26AM -0800, David E. Anderson wrote
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 07:35:29AM -0800, Deano wrote:
If anybody does know of any source to the secure erase/reformatters,
I’ll happily volunteer to do the port and then maintain it.
I’m currently in talks with several SSD and driver chip hardware
peeps with regard getting datasheets for
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 05:43:35AM -0800, Jabbar wrote:
Hello,
I was thinking of buying a couple of SSD's until I found out that Trim is only
supported with SATA drives. I'm not sure if TRIM will work with ZFS. I was
concerned that with trim support the SSD life and write throughput will
We need to move the disks comprising our mirrored rpool on a Solaris 10
U9 x86_64 (not SPARC) system.
We'll be relocating both drives to a different controller in the same
system (should go from c1* to c0*).
We're curious as to what the best way is to go about this? We'd love
to be able to just
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:51:02PM -0800, matthew patton wrote:
I have this with 36 2TB drives (and 2 separate boot drives).
http://www.colfax-intl.com/jlrid/SpotLight_more_Acc.asp?L=134S=58B=2267
That's just a Supermicro SC847.
http://www.supermicro.com/products/chassis/4U/?chs=847
I have a Solaris 10 U8 box (142901-14) running as an NFS server with
a 23 disk zpool behind it (three RAIDZ2 vdevs).
We have a single Intel X-25E SSD operating as an slog ZIL device
attached to a SATA port on this machine's motherboard.
The rest of the drives are in a hot-swap enclosure.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 08:49:00PM -0700, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson
I have a pool with a single SLOG device rated at Y iops.
If I add a second (non-mirrored) SLOG device
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:09:44PM -0700, Eff Norwood wrote:
The NFS client in this case was VMWare ESXi 4.1 release build. What
happened is that the file uploader behavior was changed in 4.1 to
prevent I/O contention with the VM guests. That means when you go to
upload something to the
I have a pool with a single SLOG device rated at Y iops.
If I add a second (non-mirrored) SLOG device also rated at Y iops will
my zpool now theoretically be able to handle 2Y iops? Or close to
that?
Thanks,
Ray
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Hey folks;
Running on Solaris 10 U9 here. How do most of you monitor disk usage /
capacity on your large zpools remotely via SNMP tools?
Net SNMP seems to be using a 32-bit unsigned integer (based on the MIB)
for hrStorageSize and friends, and thus we're not able to get accurate
numbers for
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 03:00:16PM -0700, Volker A. Brandt wrote:
Hello Ray, hello list!
Running on Solaris 10 U9 here. How do most of you monitor disk usage /
capacity on your large zpools remotely via SNMP tools?
Net SNMP seems to be using a 32-bit unsigned integer (based on the
Just wanted to post a quick follow-up to this. Original thread is
here[1] -- not quoted for brevity.
Andrew Gabriel suggested[2] that this could possibly be some workload
triggered issue. We wanted to rule out a driver problem and so we
tested various configurations under Solaris 10U9 and
Best practice in Solaris 10 U8 and older was to use a mirrored ZIL.
With the ability to remove slog devices in Solaris 10 U9, we're
thinking we may get more bang for our buck to use two slog devices for
improved IOPS performance instead of needing the redundancy so much.
Any thoughts on this?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:59:07AM -0700, Wolfraider wrote:
We are looking into the possibility of adding a dedicated ZIL and/or
L2ARC devices to our pool. We are looking into getting 4 – 32GB
Intel X25-E SSD drives. Would this be a good solution to slow write
speeds? We are currently sharing
On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 01:20:58PM -0700, Dr. Martin Mundschenk wrote:
Hi!
I searched the web for hours, trying to solve the NFS/ZFS low
performance issue on my just setup OSOL box (snv134). The problem is
discussed in many threads but I've found no solution.
On a nfs shared volume, I
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:47:49PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I want to fix (as much as is possible) a misalignment issue with an
X-25E that I am using for both OS and as an slog device.
It's pretty easy to get
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:11:32PM -0700, Christopher George wrote:
I was wondering if anyone had a benchmarking showing this alignment
mattered on the latest SSDs. My guess is no, but I have no data.
I don't believe there can be any doubt whether a Flash based SSD (tier1
or not) is
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 03:37:52PM -0700, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30 at 15:05, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
I want to fix (as much as is possible) a misalignment issue with an
X-25E that I am using for both OS and as an slog device.
This is on x86 hardware running Solaris 10U8
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 03:56:42PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
comment below...
On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 03:37:52PM -0700, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30 at 15:05, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
I want to fix (as much as is possible
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 04:12:48PM -0700, Edho P Arief wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
In any case -- any thoughts on whether or not I'll be helping anything
if I change my slog slice starting cylinder to be 4k aligned even
though slice 0
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 05:50:38AM -0700, Eff Norwood wrote:
I can't think of an easy way to measure pages that have not been consumed
since it's really an SSD controller function which is obfuscated from the OS,
and add the variable of over provisioning on top of that. If anyone would
like
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 05:51:38AM -0700, David Magda wrote:
On Fri, August 27, 2010 08:46, Eff Norwood wrote:
Saso is correct - ESX/i always uses F_SYNC for all writes and that is for
sure your performance killer. Do a snoop | grep sync and you'll see the
sync write calls from VMWare. We
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:57:17AM -0700, Marion Hakanson wrote:
markwo...@yahoo.com said:
So the question is with a proper ZIL SSD from SUN, and a RAID10... would I
be
able to support all the VM's or would it still be pushing the limits a 44
disk pool?
If it weren't a closed
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:46:42PM -0700, Mark wrote:
It does, its on a pair of large APC's.
Right now we're using NFS for our ESX Servers. The only iSCSI LUN's
I have are mounted inside a couple Windows VM's. I'd have to
migrate all our VM's to iSCSI, which I'm willing to do if it would
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:22:15PM -0700, John wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible to saturate the SSD ZIL with enough
backlogged sync writes?
What I mean is, doesn't the ZIL eventually need to make it to the
pool, and if the pool as a whole (spinning disks) can't keep up with
30+ vm's of write
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 03:51:39PM -0700, Eff Norwood wrote:
By all means please try it to validate it yourself and post your
results from hour one, day one and week one. In a ZIL use case,
although the data set is small it is always writing a small ever
changing (from the SSDs perspective)
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:47:38AM -0700, Andreas Grüninger wrote:
Ray
Supermicro does not support the use of SSDs behind an expander.
You must put the SSD in the head or use an interposer card see here:
I posted a thread on this once long ago[1] -- but we're still fighting
with this problem and I wanted to throw it out here again.
All of our hardware is from Silicon Mechanics (SuperMicro chassis and
motherboards).
Up until now, all of the hardware has had a single 24-disk expander /
backplane
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:46:23PM -0700, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
I posted a thread on this once long ago[1] -- but we're still fighting
with this problem and I wanted to throw it out here again.
All of our hardware is from Silicon Mechanics (SuperMicro chassis
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no
longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That
is not true. Anyone ELSE who uses the GPL code must release
modifications if they wish to distribute it
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
dual-licensed BTRFS.
Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
kernel rather than die
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:55:49AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
Why would they obviously want that? When the project started, they
were competing with Sun. They now own Solaris; they no longer have a
need to produce a competing product. I would be EXTREMELY surprised
to see Oracle continue to
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:58:20AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 08:52 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
already to be available under
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:08:52AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote:
C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote:
I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
BTRFS.
No.. talk to Chris Mason
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:15:12AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote:
Or, for all you know, Chris Mason's contract has a non-compete that
states if he leaves Oracle he's not allowed to work on any project he
was a part of for five years.
The business motivation would be to set the competition back a
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:01:07PM -0700, C. Bergström wrote:
Gary Mills wrote:
If this information is correct,
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043
further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors.
Opensolaris will become the internal development
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 12:36:28PM -0700, Gregory Gee wrote:
Jim, that ACARD looks really nice, but out of the price range for a
home server.
Edward, disabling ZIL might be ok, but let me characterize what my
home server does and tell me if disabling ZIL is ok.
My home OpenSolaris server
We have a server with a couple X-25E's and a bunch of larger SATA
disks.
To save space, we want to install Solaris 10 (our install is only about
1.4GB) to the X-25E's and use the remaining space on the SSD's for ZIL
attached to a zpool created from the SATA drives.
Currently we do this by
However, SVM+UFS is more annoying to work with as far as LiveUpgrade is
concerned. We'd love to use a ZFS root, but that requires that the
entire SSD be dedicated as an rpool leaving no space for ZIL. Or does
it?
It appears that we could do a:
# zfs create -V 24G rpool/zil
On our
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:40:26AM -0700, Ben Taylor wrote:
We have a server with a couple X-25E's and a bunch of
larger SATA
disks.
To save space, we want to install Solaris 10 (our
install is only about
1.4GB) to the X-25E's and use the remaining space on
the SSD's for ZIL
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 08:18:48AM -0700, Erik Ableson wrote:
Le 2 juil. 2010 à 16:30, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com a écrit :
On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 03:40:26AM -0700, Ben Taylor wrote:
We have a server with a couple X-25E's and a bunch of larger SATA
disks.
To save space, we
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 09:47:15AM -0700, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Arne Jansen [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Due to recent experiences, and discussion on this list, my colleague
and
I performed some tests:
Using solaris 10, fully upgraded. (zpool 15
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 09:42:44AM -0700, F. Wessels wrote:
I just lookup it up again and as far as i can see the super cap is
present in the MLC version as well as the SLC
Very nice. A pair of the 50GB SLC model would be great for ZIL. Might
continue to stick with the X-25M for L2ARC though
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 01:10:44PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 01:03:32PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
Makes sense. So, as someone else suggested, decreasing my block size
may improve
I'm running zpool version 23 (via ZFS fuse on Linux) and have a zpool
with deduplication turned on.
I am testing how well deduplication will work for the storage of many,
similar ISO files and so far am seeing unexpected results (or perhaps
my expectations are wrong).
The ISO's I'm testing with
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 11:16:40AM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
The ISO's I'm testing with are the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the
RHEL5 DVD ISO's. While both have their differences, they do contain a
lot of similar
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 01:03:32PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
Makes sense. So, as someone else suggested, decreasing my block size
may improve the deduplication ratio.
It might. It might make your performance tank
This thread has grown giant, so apologies for screwing up threading
with an out of place reply. :)
So, as far as SF-1500 based SSD's, the only ones currently in existence
are the Vertex 2 LE and Vertex 2 EX, correct (I understand the Vertex 2
Pro was never mass produced)?
Both of these are based
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:30:20AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
This thread has grown giant, so apologies for screwing up threading
with an out of place reply. :)
So, as far as SF-1500 based SSD's, the only ones currently in existence
are the Vertex 2 LE and Vertex 2 EX, correct (I
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 04:31:08PM -0700, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 6 May 2010, Ian Collins wrote:
Bob and Ian are right. I was trying to remember the last time I installed
Solaris 10, and the best I can recall, it was around late fall 2007.
The fine folks at Oracle have been making
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 05:09:40PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 19:03 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
From a zfs standpoint, Solaris 10 does not seem to be behind the
currently supported OpenSolaris release.
Well, being
We're starting to grow our ZFS environment and really need to start
standardizing our monitoring procedures.
OS tools are great for spot troubleshooting and sar can be used for
some trending, but we'd really like to tie this into an SNMP based
system that can generate graphs for us (via RRD or
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
