Am 09.09.2010 um 07:00 schrieb zfs-discuss-requ...@opensolaris.org:
What's the write workload like? You could try disabling the ZIL to see
if that makes a difference. If it does, the addition of an SSD-based
ZIL / slog device would most certainly help.
Maybe you could describe the makeup
On 9/8/2010 10:08 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Edward Ned Harveysh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
Both of the above situations resilver in equal time, unless there is a bus
bottleneck. 21 disks in a single raidz3 will resilver just as fast as 7
disks in a raidz1, as long
On 9/9/2010 2:15 AM, taemun wrote:
Erik: does that mean that keeping the number of data drives in a
raidz(n) to a power of two is better? In the example you gave, you
mentioned 14kb being written to each drive. That doesn't sound very
efficient to me.
(when I say the above, I mean a five
On 08 September, 2010 - Fei Xu sent me these 5,9K bytes:
I dig deeper into it and might find some useful information.
I attached an X25 SSD for ZIL to see if it helps. but no luck.
I run IOstate -xnz for more details and got interesting result as
below.(maybe too long)
some explaination:
Service times here are crap. Disks are malfunctioning
in some way. If
your source disks can take seconds (or 10+ seconds)
to reply, then of
course your copy will be slow. Disk is probably
having a hard time
reading the data or something.
Yeah, that should not go over 15ms. I just
Very interesting...
Well, lets see if we can do the numbers for my setup.
From a previous post of mine:
[i]This is my exact breakdown (cheap disks on cheap bus :P) :
PCI-E 8X 4-port ESata Raid Controller.
4 x ESata to 5Sata Port multipliers (each connected to a ESata port on the
controller).
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Freddie Cash
No, it (21-disk raidz3 vdev) most certainly will not resilver in the
same amount of time. In fact, I highly doubt it would resilver at
all.
My first foray into ZFS resulted
On 9/9/2010 5:49 AM, hatish wrote:
Very interesting...
Well, lets see if we can do the numbers for my setup.
From a previous post of mine:
[i]This is my exact breakdown (cheap disks on cheap bus :P) :
PCI-E 8X 4-port ESata Raid Controller.
4 x ESata to 5Sata Port multipliers (each
On 9/9/2010 5:49 AM, hatish wrote:
Very interesting...
Well, lets see if we can do the numbers for my setup.
From a previous post of mine:
[i]This is my exact breakdown (cheap disks on cheap bus :P) :
PCI-E 8X 4-port ESata Raid Controller.
4 x ESata to 5Sata Port multipliers (each
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 09:03, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
Actually, your biggest bottleneck will be the IOPS limits of the drives. A
7200RPM SATA drive tops out at 100 IOPS. Yup. That's it.
So, if you need to do 62.5e6 IOPS, and the rebuild drive can do just 100
IOPS, that
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Erik Trimble
the thing that folks tend to forget is that RaidZ is IOPS limited. For
the most part, if I want to reconstruct a single slab (stripe) of data,
I have to issue a read to EACH
From: Hatish Narotam [mailto:hat...@gmail.com]
PCI-E 8X 4-port ESata Raid Controller.
4 x ESata to 5Sata Port multipliers (each connected to a ESata port on
the controller).
20 x Samsung 1TB HDD's. (each connected to a Port Multiplier).
Assuming your disks can all sustain 500Mbit/sec,
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
The characteristic that *really* makes a big difference is the number
of
slabs in the pool. i.e. if your filesystem is composed of mostly small
files or fragments, versus
Erik wrote:
Actually, your biggest bottleneck will be the IOPS
limits of the
drives. A 7200RPM SATA drive tops out at 100 IOPS.
Yup. That's it.
So, if you need to do 62.5e6 IOPS, and the rebuild
drive can do just 100
IOPS, that means you will finish (best case) in
62.5e4 seconds.
On Sep 9, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Fei Xu twinse...@hotmail.com wrote:
Service times here are crap. Disks are malfunctioning
in some way. If
your source disks can take seconds (or 10+ seconds)
to reply, then of
course your copy will be slow. Disk is probably
having a hard time
reading the data
On Sep 9, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Fei Xu twinse...@hotmail.com wrote:
This might be the dreaded WD TLER issue. Basically the drive keeps retrying a
read operation over and over after a bit error trying to recover from a
read error themselves. With ZFS one really needs to disable this and have
Hi--
It might help to review the disk component terminology description:
c#t#d#p# = represents the the fdisk partition on x86 systems, where
you can have up to 4 fdisk partitions, such as one for the Solaris
OS or a Windows OS. An fdisk partition is the larger container of the
disk or disk
Hi,
currently I'm trying to debug a very strange phenomenon on a nearly full
pool (96%). Here are the symptoms: over NFS, a find on the pool takes
a very long time, up to 30s (!) for each file. Locally, the performance
is quite normal.
What I found out so far: It seems that every nfs write
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 14:05:51 +, Markus Kovero
markus.kov...@nebula.fi wrote:
On Sep 9, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Fei Xu twinse...@hotmail.com wrote:
This might be the dreaded WD TLER issue. Basically the drive keeps retrying
a read operation over and over after a bit error trying to recover
Arne,
NFS often demands it's transactions are stable before returning.
This forces ZFS to do the system call synchronously. Usually the
ZIL (code) allocates and writes a new block in the intent log chain to
achieve this.
If ever it fails to allocate a block (of the size requested) it it forced
of the agreement are confidential.
http://tinyurl.com/39qkzgz
http://www.netapp.com/us/company/news/news-rel-20100909-oracle-settlement.html
A recap of the history at:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/09/oracle_netapp_zfs_dismiss/
___
zfs-discuss
I should also have mentioned that if the pool has a separate log device
then this shouldn't happen.Assuming the slog is big enough then it
it should have enough blocks to not be forced into using main pool
device blocks.
Neil.
On 09/09/10 10:36, Neil Perrin wrote:
Arne,
NFS often demands
Hi Neil,
Neil Perrin wrote:
NFS often demands it's transactions are stable before returning.
This forces ZFS to do the system call synchronously. Usually the
ZIL (code) allocates and writes a new block in the intent log chain to
achieve this.
If ever it fails to allocate a block (of the size
. Oracle and NetApp seek to have the lawsuits
dismissed without prejudice. The terms of the agreement are confidential.
http://tinyurl.com/39qkzgz
http://www.netapp.com/us/company/news/news-rel-20100909-oracle-settlement.html
A recap of the history at:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09
in 2007 between Sun
Microsystems and NetApp. Oracle and NetApp seek to have the lawsuits
dismissed without prejudice. The terms of the agreement are confidential.
http://tinyurl.com/39qkzgz
http://www.netapp.com/us/company/news/news-rel-20100909-oracle-settlement.html
A recap of the history
On Sep 9, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Arne Jansen wrote:
Hi Neil,
Neil Perrin wrote:
NFS often demands it's transactions are stable before returning.
This forces ZFS to do the system call synchronously. Usually the
ZIL (code) allocates and writes a new block in the intent log chain to
achieve
Richard Elling wrote:
On Sep 9, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Arne Jansen wrote:
Hi Neil,
Neil Perrin wrote:
NFS often demands it's transactions are stable before returning.
This forces ZFS to do the system call synchronously. Usually the
ZIL (code) allocates and writes a new block in the intent log
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Erik Trimble wrote:
Yes, it's welcome to get it over with.
I do get to bitch about one aspect here of the US civil legal system, though.
If you've gone so far as to burn our (the public's) time and money to file a
lawsuit, you shouldn't be able to seal up the court
ml == Mark Little marklit...@koallo.com writes:
ml Just to clarify - do you mean TLER should be off or on?
It should be set to ``do not have asvc_t 11 seconds and 1 io/s''.
...which is not one of the settings of the TLER knob.
This isn't a problem with the TLER *setting*. TLER does not
dm == David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca writes:
dm http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/09/oracle_netapp_zfs_dismiss/
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050121014650517
says when the MPL was modified to become the CDDL, clauses were
removed which would have required Oracle to
On 9/9/2010 11:11 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 12:58 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Erik Trimble wrote:
Yes, it's welcome to get it over with.
I do get to bitch about one aspect here of the US civil legal system, though.
If you've gone so far as to burn
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
True. But, I wonder if the settlement sets a precedent?
No precedent has been set.
Certainly the lack of a successful lawsuit has *failed* to set any
precedent conclusively indicating that NetApp has enforceable patents
where ZFS is concerned.
A) Resilver = Defrag. True/false?
B) If I buy larger drives and resilver, does defrag happen?
C) Does zfs send zfs receive mean it will defrag?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
ZFS does not handle 4K sector drives well, you need to create a new zpool with
4K property (ashift) set.
http://www.solarismen.de/archives/5-Solaris-and-the-new-4K-Sector-Disks-e.g.-WDxxEARS-Part-2.html
Are there plans to allow resilver to handle 4K sector drives?
--
This message posted from
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Orvar Korvar
knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com wrote:
A) Resilver = Defrag. True/false?
False. Resilver just rebuilds a drive in a vdev based on the
redundant data stored on the other drives in the vdev. Similar to how
replacing a dead drive works in a hardware
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn
There should be little doubt that NetApp's goal was to make money by
suing Sun. Nexenta does not have enough income/assets to make a risky
lawsuit worthwhile.
But in all
I am speaking from my own observations and nothing scientific such as reading
the code or designing the process.
A) Resilver = Defrag. True/false?
False
B) If I buy larger drives and resilver, does defrag
happen?
No. The first X sectors of the bigger drive are identical to the smaller
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Orvar Korvar
knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com wrote:
A) Resilver = Defrag. True/false?
False. Resilver just rebuilds a drive in a vdev based on the
redundant data stored on the other drives
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
True. But, I wonder if the settlement sets a precedent?
No precedent has been set.
Certainly the lack of a successful lawsuit has *failed* to set any
Comment at end...
Mattias Pantzare wrote:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 15:27, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: pantz...@gmail.com [mailto:pantz...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Mattias Pantzare
It
is about 1 vdev with 12 disk or 2 vdev with 6 disks. If you have 2
vdev you have to
Erik Trimble wrote:
On 9/9/2010 2:15 AM, taemun wrote:
Erik: does that mean that keeping the number of data drives in a
raidz(n) to a power of two is better? In the example you gave, you
mentioned 14kb being written to each drive. That doesn't sound very
efficient to me.
(when I say the
Just to update the status and findings.
I've checked TLER settings and they are off by default.
I moved the source pool to another chassis and do the 3.8TB send again. this
time, not any problems! the difference is
1. New chassis
2. BIGGER memory. 32GB v.s 12GB
3. although wdidle time is
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Orvar Korvar
A) Resilver = Defrag. True/false?
I think everyone will agree false on this question. However, more detail
may be appropriate. See below.
B) If I buy larger drives and
From: Haudy Kazemi [mailto:kaze0...@umn.edu]
There is another optimization in the Best Practices Guide that says the
number of devices in a vdev should be (N+P) with P = 1 (raidz), 2
(raidz2), or 3 (raidz3) and N equals 2, 4, or 8.
I.e. 2^N + P where N is 1, 2, or 3 and P is the RAIDZ level.
On 09/09/10 20:08, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Scores so far:
2 No
1 Yes
No. resilver does not re-layout your data or change whats in the block
pointers on disk. if it was fragmented before, it will be fragmented after.
C) Does zfs send zfs receive mean it will defrag?
45 matches
Mail list logo
