The latency issue might improve with this rfe
6471212 need reserved I/O scheduler slots to improve I/O latency of critical
ops
-r
Tom Duell writes:
Group,
We are running a benchmark with 4000 users
simulating a hospital management system
running on Solaris 10 6/06 on USIV+ based
Hi Darren
Thanks for your reply.
You please take a deep look into the following command:
$mkfs -F vxfs -o bsize=1024 /dev/rdsk/c5t20d9s2 2048000
The above command creates vxfs file system on first 2048000 blocks (each
block size is 1024 bytes) of /dev/rdsk/c5t20d9s2 .
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Chris,
Wednesday, December 6, 2006, 6:23:48 PM, you wrote:
CG One of our file servers internally to Sun that reproduces this
CG running nv53 here is the dtrace output:
Any conclusions yet?
Not yet. We had to delete all the automatic snapshots we had so that
Hello Neil,
Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 1:59:15 AM, you wrote:
NP Tom Duell wrote On 12/12/06 17:11,:
Group,
We are running a benchmark with 4000 users
simulating a hospital management system
running on Solaris 10 6/06 on USIV+ based
SunFire 6900 with 6540 storage array.
Are there
Thanks, I just downloaded Update 3 and hopefully the problem will go away.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
$mkfs -F vxfs -o bsize=1024 /dev/rdsk/c5t20d9s2 2048000
The above command creates vxfs file system on first 2048000 blocks (each
block size is 1024 bytes) of /dev/rdsk/c5t20d9s2 .
Like this is there a option to limit the size of ZFS file system.? if
so what it is ? how it is ?
The Luns will be on separate SPA controllersnot on all the same controller,
so that's why I thought if we split our data on different disks and ZFS Storage
Pools we would get better IO performance. Correct?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Kory Wheatley wrote:
The Luns will be on separate SPA controllersnot on all
the same controller, so that's why I thought if we split
our data on different disks and ZFS Storage Pools we would
get better IO performance. Correct?
The way to think about it is that, in general, for best
I would like to create the following pool using the zfs gui:
zpool create tank mirror c0t7d0 c1t7d0 mirror c4t7d0 c5t7do mirror c6t7d0 c7t7d0
The gui does not seem to let me create multiple vdevs in a pool at the same
time. I know I can go back and add the mirrors later on, but I would like
Anton B. Rang wrote:
Also note that the UB is written to every vdev (4 per disk) so the
chances of all UBs being corrupted is rather low.
The chances that they're corrupted by the storage system, yes.
However, they are all sourced from the same in-memory buffer, so
an undetected in-memory
This is probably an attempt to 'short-stroke' a larger disk with the
intention utilising only a small ammount of the disk surface, as a
technique it used to be quite common for certain apps (notably DBs).
Hence you saw deployments of quite large disks but with perhaps only
1/4-1/2
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 22:49 -0800, Patrick P Korsnick wrote:
i have a machine with a disk that has some sort of defect and i've
found that if i partition only half of the disk that the machine will
still work. i tried to use 'format' to scan the disk and find the bad
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Torrey,
Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 11:40:42 PM, you wrote:
TM Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Matthew,
MCA Also, I am considering what type of zpools to create. I have a
MCA SAN with T3Bs and SE3511s. Since neither of these can work as a
MCA JBOD (at lesat
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:24 -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
I've seen two cases of disk failure where errors only occurred during
random I/O; all blocks were readable sequentially; in both cases, this
permitted the disk to be replaced without data loss and without
resorting to backups by
Robert,
It's not that bad with CPU usage.
For example with RAID-Z2 while doing scrub I get
something like
800MB/s read from disks (550-600MB/s from zpool
iostat perspective)
and all four cores are mostly consumed - I get
something like 10% idle
on each cpu.
===
But in the end this would
Al,
snip
Being a friend of simplicity I was thinking about
using a pair (or more) of 3320
SCSI JBODs with multiple RAIDZ and/or RAID10 zfs
disk pools on which we'd
Have you not heard that SCSI is dead? :)
scis == slowdead, well more or less, that is
While I understand you don't want
On a recent journey of pain and frustration, I had to recover a UFS
filesystem from a broken disk. The disk had many bad blocks and more
were going bad over time. Sadly, there were just a few files that I
wanted, but I could not mount the disk without it killing my system.
(PATA disks... PITA
17 matches
Mail list logo
