Just posted:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
Performance, Availability Architecture Engineering
Roch BourbonnaisSun Microsystems,
Roch - PAE wrote:
Just posted:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
Nice article. Now what about when we do this with more than one disk
and compare UFS/SVM or VxFS/VxVM with ZFS as the back end - all with
JBOD storage ?
How then does ZFS compare as an NFS server ?
Is this expected behavior? Assuming concurrent reads (not synchronous and
sequential) I would naively expect an ndisk raidz2 pool to have a
normalized performance of n for small reads.
q.v. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=20942tstart=0
where such behavior in a
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
So just to confirm; disabling the zil *ONLY* breaks the semantics of fsync()
and synchronous writes from the application perspective; it will do *NOTHING*
to lessen the correctness guarantee of ZFS itself, including in the case of a
Hi,
Is ZFS comparable to PVFS2? Could it also be used as an distributed filesystem
at the moment or are there any plans for this in the future?
Thanks and best regards,
Ivan
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Sanjeev,
Could you point me in the right direction as to how to convert the
following GCC compile flags to Studio 11 compile flags? Any help is
greatly appreciated. We're trying to recompile MySQL to give a
stacktrace and core file to track down exactly why its
crashing...hopefully it will
I have been looking at zfs source trying to get up to speed on the
internals. One thing that interests me about the fs is what appears to be
a low hanging fruit for block squishing CAS (Content Addressable Storage).
I think that in addition to lzjb compression, squishing blocks that contain
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:47:31PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
So just to confirm; disabling the zil *ONLY* breaks the semantics of fsync()
and synchronous writes from the application perspective; it will do *NOTHING*
to lessen the
Peter Schuller wrote:
Is this expected behavior? Assuming concurrent reads (not synchronous and
sequential) I would naively expect an ndisk raidz2 pool to have a
normalized performance of n for small reads.
q.v. http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=20942tstart=0
where
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:47:31PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
So just to confirm; disabling the zil *ONLY* breaks the semantics of
fsync()
and synchronous writes from the application perspective; it will do
*NOTHING*
to lessen the
Peter Schuller wrote:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
So just to confirm; disabling the zil *ONLY* breaks the semantics of fsync()
and synchronous writes from the application perspective; it will do *NOTHING*
to lessen the correctness guarantee of ZFS itself,
Hans-Juergen Schnitzer writes:
Roch - PAE wrote:
Just posted:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
Which role plays network latency? If I understand you right,
even a low-latency network, e.g. Infiniband, would not increase
performance
Hans-Juergen Schnitzer wrote:
Roch - PAE wrote:
Just posted:
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/nfs_and_zfs_a_fine
Which role plays network latency? If I understand you right,
even a low-latency network, e.g. Infiniband, would not increase
performance substantially since the main
On 8-Jan-07, at 11:54 AM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
...We're trying to recompile MySQL to give a
stacktrace and core file to track down exactly why its
crashing...hopefully it will illuminate if memory truly is the issue.
If you're using the Enterprise release, can't you get MySQL's
[Initial version of this message originally sent to zfs-interest by
mistake. Sorry if this appears anywhere as a duplicate.]
I was noodling around with creating a backup script for my home
system, and I ran into a problem that I'm having a little trouble
diagnosing. Has anyone seen anything
Our setup:
- E2900 (24 x 96); Solaris 10 Update 2 (aka 06/06)
- 2 2Gbps FC HBA
- EMC DMX storage
- 50 x 64GB LUNs configured in 1 ZFS pool
- Many filesystems created with COMPRESS enabled; specifically I've one that is
768GB
I'm observing the following puzzling behavior:
- We are currently
Quick update, since my original post I've confirmed via DTrace (rwtop script in
toolkit) that the application is not generating 150MB/S * compressratio of I/O.
What then is causing this much I/O in our system?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
I want to setup a ZFS server with RAID-Z. Right now I have 3 disks. In 6
months, I want to add a 4th drive and still have everything under RAID-Z
without a backup/wipe/restore scenario. Is this possible?
I've used NetApps in the past (1996 even!) and they do it. I think they're
using
Anantha N. Srirama wrote On 01/08/07 13:04,:
Our setup:
- E2900 (24 x 96); Solaris 10 Update 2 (aka 06/06)
- 2 2Gbps FC HBA
- EMC DMX storage
- 50 x 64GB LUNs configured in 1 ZFS pool
- Many filesystems created with COMPRESS enabled; specifically I've one that is
768GB
I'm observing the
I was noodling around with creating a backup script for my home
system, and I ran into a problem that I'm having a little trouble
diagnosing. Has anyone seen anything like this or have any debug
advice?
I did a zfs create -r to set a snapshot on all of the members of a
given pool.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been looking at zfs source trying to get up to speed on the
internals. One thing that interests me about the fs is what appears to be
a low hanging fruit for block squishing CAS (Content Addressable Storage).
I think that in addition to lzjb compression,
We're not using the Enterprise release, but we are working with them.
It looks like MySQL is crashing due to lack of memory.
-J
On 1/8/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8-Jan-07, at 11:54 AM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
...We're trying to recompile MySQL to give a
stacktrace and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was noodling around with creating a backup script for my home
system, and I ran into a problem that I'm having a little trouble
diagnosing. Has anyone seen anything like this or have any debug
advice?
I did a zfs create -r to set a snapshot on all of the
Note that you'd actually have to verify that the blocks were the same;
you cannot count on the hash function. If you didn't do this, anyone
discovering a collision could destroy the colliding blocks/files.
Given that nobody knows how to find sha256 collisions, you'd of course
need to test
Does this seem feasible? Are there any blocking points that I am
missing
or unaware of? I am just posting this for discussion, it seems very
interesting to me.
Note that you'd actually have to verify that the blocks were the same;
you cannot count on the hash function. If you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this seem feasible? Are there any blocking points that I am
missing
or unaware of? I am just posting this for discussion, it seems very
interesting to me.
Note that you'd actually have to verify that the blocks were the same;
you
Bill Sommerfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/08/2007 03:41:53 PM:
Note that you'd actually have to verify that the blocks were the same;
you cannot count on the hash function. If you didn't do this, anyone
discovering a collision could destroy the colliding blocks/files.
Given that
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/08/2007 03:26:14 PM:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was noodling around with creating a backup script for my home
system, and I ran into a problem that I'm having a little trouble
diagnosing. Has anyone seen anything like this or have any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/08/2007 04:06:46 PM:
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/08/2007 03:26:14 PM:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was noodling around with creating a backup script for my home
system, and I ran into a problem that I'm having a little trouble
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Other heavy load on the system, though, doesn't cause this to happen.
This one operation does cause the lock-up.
Understood. Two things, does the rename loop hit any of the fs in
question,
No; the loop you saw is essentially what I ran. (Other than that it
I want to setup a ZFS server with RAID-Z. Right now I have 3 disks. In 6
months, I want to add a 4th drive and still have everything under RAID-Z
without a backup/wipe/restore scenario. Is this possible?
You can add additional storage to the same pool effortlessly, such that the
pool will
Ivan wrote:
Hi,
Is ZFS comparable to PVFS2? Could it also be used as an distributed filesystem
at the moment or are there any plans for this in the future?
I don't know anything at all about PVFS2, so I can't comment on that point.
As far as ZFS being used as a distributed file system, it
Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
Quick update, since my original post I've confirmed via DTrace (rwtop script in
toolkit) that the application is not generating 150MB/S * compressratio of I/O.
What then is causing this much I/O in our system?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Are you
For future reference for someone looking to build a ZFS storage server, the
server config I am now using is Solaris 10 U3, has two Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8
controllers, 12 Seagate 750GB drives, 2 Seagate 160GB drives, and an Asus P5M2
motherboard (don't think these boards are yet for general
Hi Ed,
pNFS (Parallel NFS) could benefit by using a 'distributed filesystem version'
of ZFS. By using pNFS files could be striped along different NFS servers.
Lisa Week ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) told me that they would like to use ZFS in future
pNFS Servers in Solaris.
Thanks and best regards,
35 matches
Mail list logo
