Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS is very slow in our test, when the capacity is high
Hi, did you read the following? http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide Currently, pool performance can degrade when a pool is very full and filesystems are updated frequently, such as on a busy mail server. Under these circumstances, keep pool space under 80% utilization to maintain pool performance. I wonder if defining a zfs quota of roughly 80% of the whole pool capacity would help to keep performance up. Users always use all the space available. Regards, Tom This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs: allocating allocated segment(offset=77984887808
size=66560) In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved: 3sm4u3 X-OpenSolaris-URL: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=163221tstart=0#163221 how does one free segment(offset=77984887808 size=66560) on a pool that won't import? looks like I found http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6580715 http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2007-September/042541.html Btw. my machine from that mail.opensolaris.org zfs-discuss thread, which paniced with freeing free segment, did have a defective ram module. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the bad ram module might have been the root cause for that freeing free segment zfs panic, too ... This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs: allocating allocated segment (offset=
I suspect that the bad ram module might have been the root cause for that freeing free segment zfs panic, perhaps I removed two 2G simms but left the two 512M simms, also removed kernelbase but the zpool import still crashed the machine. its also registered ECC ram, memtest86 v1.7 didn't find anything yet, but I'll let it go overnight. Rob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Zone root on a ZFS filesystem and Cloning zones
On 11/10/2007, Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, they aren't (i.e. zoneadm clone on S10u4 doesn't use zfs snapshots). I have a workaround I'm about to blog Here it is - hopefully be of some use: http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/10/11/fast-zone-cloning-on-solaris-10 -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs/zpools iscsi
Hello all, sorry if somebody already asked this or not. I was playing today with iSCSI and I was able to create zpool and then via iSCSI I can see it on two other hosts. I was courious if I could use zfs to have it shared on those two hosts but aparently I was unable to do it for obvious reasons. On my linuc oracle rac I was using ocfs which works just as I need it, does anyone know if such could be acheived with zfs maybe? maybe if not now but in the future? is there anything that I could do at this moment to be able to have my two other solaris clients see my zpool that I am presenting via iscsi to them both? Is there any solutions out there of this kind? Thanks so much for your help. Regards, Chris ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Inherited quota question
Has there been any solution to the problem discussed above in ZFS version 8?? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] XFS_IOC_FSGETXATTR XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 like options in ZFS ?
Hi,
I am using XFS_IOC_FSGETXATTR in ioctl() call on Linux running XFS file
system.I want to use similar thing on Solaris running ZFS file system.
struct fsxattr fsx;
ioctl(fd, XFS_IOC_FSGETXATTR, fsx);
The above call get additional attributes associated with files in XFS
file systems. The final argument points to a variable of type struct
fsxattr, whose fields include: fsx_xflags (extended flag bits),
fsx_extsize (nominal extent size in file system blocks), fsx_nextents
(number of data extents in the file). A fsx_extsize value returned
indicates that a preferred extent size was previously set on the file, a
fsx_extsize of zero indicates that the defaults for that filesystem will
be used.
Structure for XFS_IOC_FSGETXATTR and XFS_IOC_FSSETXATTR.
struct fsxattr {
__u32 fsx_xflags; /* xflags field value (get/set) */
__u32 fsx_extsize;/* extsize field value (get/set)*/
__u32 fsx_nextents; /* nextents field value (get) */
__u32 fsx_projid; /* project identifier (get/set) */
unsigned char fsx_pad[12];
};
Is it possible to use ioctl to allocate disk space on ZFS ? I am using
XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 in ioctl() call on Linux running XFS file system.
flock.l_whence = SEEK_SET;
flock.l_start = file_size;
flock.l_len = n_bytes_grow;
ioctl_ret = ioctl(fd, XFS_IOC_RESVSP64, flock);
The above call is used to allocate space to a file. A range of bytes is
specified using a pointer to a variable of type xfs_flock64_t in the
final argument. The blocks are allocated, but not zeroed, and the file
size does not change. If the XFS filesystem is configured to flag
unwritten file extents, performance will be negatively affected when
writing to preallocated space, since extra filesystem transactions are
required to convert extent flags on the range of the file written.
Thanks
Manoj Nayak
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs/zpools iscsi
2007/10/12, Krzys [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hello all, sorry if somebody already asked this or not. I was playing today with iSCSI and I was able to create zpool and then via iSCSI I can see it on two other hosts. I was courious if I could use zfs to have it shared on those two hosts but aparently I was unable to do it for obvious reasons. On my linuc oracle rac I was using ocfs which works just as I need it, does anyone know if such could be acheived with zfs maybe? maybe if not now but in the future? is there anything that I could do at this moment to be able to have my two other solaris clients see my zpool that I am presenting via iscsi to them both? Is there any solutions out there of this kind? Why not use NFS? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] XFS_IOC_FSGETXATTR XFS_IOC_RESVSP64 like options in ZFS ?
Manoj Nayak wrote: Hi, I am using XFS_IOC_FSGETXATTR in ioctl() call on Linux running XFS file system.I want to use similar thing on Solaris running ZFS file system. See openat(2). -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS is very slow in our test, when the capacity is high
eSX wrote: We are tesing ZFS in OpenSolairs, write TBs data to ZFS, But when the capacity is close to 90%, ZFS went into slowly. We do ls, rm, and write something, those operation is so terrible. for example, we do ls in a Directory which have about 4000 Directories, the time is about 5-10s! we've checked the CPU, memory(and swap), IO, all those are normal and idle. So is there any specialty in ZFS when capacity is high, like UFS? thanks. It's insane to exhaust every bits in almost *any* file system IMHO, because when this happens you end up with a lot of fragments (this will affect ZFS more than UFS, as the difference in disk layout), which will just hurt performance because the increased disk seek requests. Cheers, -- Xin LI [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] practicality of zfs send/receive for failover
We've been evaluating ZFS as a possible enterprise file system for our campus. Initially, we were considering one large cluster, but it doesn't look like that will scale to meet our needs. So, now we are thinking about breaking our storage across multiple servers, probably three. However, I don't necessarily want to incur the expense and hassle of maintaining three clusters, but think I might have three standalone servers instead. If one of them happens to break, we're only down 1/3 Of our files, not all of them. Given our budget, that's probably an acceptable compromise. On the other hand, it would be nice to have some level of redundancy, so I'm toying with the idea of having each server be primary for some amount of storage, and secondary for a different set of storage. Each server would use zfs send to replicate snapshots to its backup server. I've read a number of threads and blog posts discussing zfs send/receive and its applicability is such an implementation, but I'm curious if anyone has actually done something like that in practice, and if so how well it worked. What authentication/authorization was used to transfer the zfs snapshots between servers? I'm thinking about using ssh with public-key authentication over an internal private network the servers are connected to with different ethernet interfaces than the ones facing the world and actually serving files. Does zfs send/receive have to be done with root privileges, or can RBAC or some other mechanism be used so a lower privileged account could be used? In the various threads I read about this type of failover, there was some issue about marking the filesystems readonly on the slave, or else changes would cause snapshots to fail? Supposedly there was some feature added to zfs receive to rectify this problem, did that make it into S10U4, or is that still only in the development version? Did you have automatic or manual failover? I'm thinking about having a manual failover process, if the process were automatic given the replication is only one way if a failover happened, and the secondary server started providing service, updates would happen there that would not be on the primary server if it suddenly came back to life and took over again. How did you implement the failover at the network level? DNS change? Virtual IP address switched from one server to the other? Thanks much for any feedback... -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | [EMAIL PROTECTED] California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs/zpools iscsi
I was courious if I could use zfs to have it shared on those two hosts no, that`s not possible for now. but aparently I was unable to do it for obvious reasons. you will corrupt your data! On my linuc oracle rac I was using ocfs which works just as I need it yes, because ocfs is build for that. it`s a cluster filesystem - that`s what you need for this. another name is shared disk filesystem see wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems maybe if not now but in the future? it has been discussed, iirc. is there anything that I could do at this moment to be able to have my two other solaris clients see my zpool that I am presenting via iscsi to them both? zpool? i assume you mean zvol, correct ? Is there any solutions out there of this kind? i`m not that deep into solaris, but iirc there isn`t one for free. veritas is quite popular, but you need spend lots of bucks for this. maybe SAM-QFS ? regards roland This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs/zpools iscsi
roland wrote: Is there any solutions out there of this kind? i`m not that deep into solaris, but iirc there isn`t one for free. veritas is quite popular, but you need spend lots of bucks for this. maybe SAM-QFS ? We have lots of customers using shared QFS with RAC. QFS is on the road to open source, too bad RAC isn't :-P http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/storage/ -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS array NVRAM cache
So what are the failure modes to worry about? I'm not exactly sure what the implications of this nocache option for my configuration. Say from a recent example I have an overtemp and first one array shuts down, then the other one. I come in after A/C is returned, shutdown and repower everything. Bring up the zpool and scrub it I would think I should be good. Any other scenarios I should play out? I really like mirrored dual-array setups with clustered frontends in failover mode. I want performance but don't want to risk my data, so if there are reasons to remove this option from /etc/system I will do that. I still see little or no usage of the cache according to the status-page on the 3310. I really would expect more activity so I'm wondering if it's still not being used. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] io:::start and zfs filenames?
Jim Mauro wrote:
Hi Neel - Thanks for pushing this out. I've been tripping over this for
a while.
You can instrument zfs_read() and zfs_write() to reliably track filenames:
#!/usr/sbin/dtrace -s
#pragma D option quiet
zfs_read:entry,
zfs_write:entry
{
printf(%s of %s\n,probefunc, stringof(args[0]-v_path));
}
FYI, this tracks the system calls made (which may hit in the cache), whereas
io:::start tracks i/o sent down to the disk driver.
What sayeth the ZFS team regarding the use of a stable DTrace provider
with their file system?
Sounds like a good idea. However, as others discussed, the data needed to do
that is not immediately available.
--matt
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Space Map optimalization
Łukasz K wrote:
Now space maps, intent log, spa history are compressed.
All normal metadata (including space maps and spa history) is always
compressed. The intent log is never compressed.
Can you tell me where space map is compressed ?
we specify that it should be compressed in dbuf_sync_leaf:
if (dmu_ot[dn-dn_type].ot_metadata) {
checksum = os-os_md_checksum;
compress = zio_compress_select(dn-dn_compress,
os-os_md_compress);
os_md_compress is set to ZIO_COMPRESS_LZJB in dmu_objset_open_impl(), so the
compression will happen in lzjb_compress().
I want to propose few optimalization here:
- space map block size schould be dynamin ( 4KB buffer is a bug )
My space map on thumper takes over 3,5 GB / 4kB = 855k blocks
A small block size is used because we typically have to keep the last block
of every space map in memory (as we are constantly appending to it). This is
a trade-off between memory usage and time taken to load the space map.
--matt
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] practicality of zfs send/receive for failover
So the problem in the zfs send/receive thing, is what if your network glitches out during the transfers? We have these once a day due to some as-yet-undiagnosed switch problem, a chop-out of 50 seconds or so which is enough to trip all our IPMP setups and enough to abort SSH transfers in progress. Just saying you need error-checking to account for these. The transfers in my testing seemed fairly slow I was doing a full send and receive not incremental, for some 400 gigs and it took over 24 hours at which time I lost connection and gave up on the idea. Once you were just down to incrementals it probably wouldn't be so bad. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Some test results: ZFS + SAMBA + Sun Fire X4500 (Thumper)
Tim Thomas wrote: Hi this may be of interest: http://blogs.sun.com/timthomas/entry/samba_performance_on_sun_fire I appreciate that this is not a frightfully clever set of tests but I needed some throughout numbersand the easiest way to share the results is to blog. It seems that we can conclude that for this workload (streaming write over SAMBA), you saturated 2 x 1Gb/sec ethernet links, and the rest of the system (CPU, disk bandwidth) was under-utilized. --matt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS 60 second pause times to read 1K
Michael Kucharski wrote: We have a x4500 setup as a single 4*( raid2z 9 + 2)+2 spare pool and have the files system mounted over v5 krb5 NFS and accessed directly. The pool is a 20TB pool and is using . There are three filesystems, backup, test and home. Test has about 20 million files and uses 4TB. These files range from 100B to 200MB. Test has a cron job to take snapshots every 15 minutes from 1m on the hour. Every 15min at 2min on the hour a cron batch job runs to zfs send/recv to the backup filesystem. Home has only 100GB. Are you doing this send|recv within the same pool? What's the motivation for that? Can't you just use zfs clone, which would be much faster and use less disk space? Or if you want another copy (which seems unlikely since you can already tolerate any 2 disks failing in your pool), then use zfs set copies=2 fs. --matt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] enlarge a mirrored pool
Hi all, Forgive me if this is a dumb question. Is it possible for a two-disk mirrored zpool to be seamlessly enlarged by gradually replacing previous disk with larger one? Say, in a constrained desktop, only space for two internal disks is available, could I just begin with two 160G disks, then at some time, replace one of the 160G with 250G, resilvering, then replace another 160G, and finally get a two-disk 250G mirrored pool? Cheers, Ivan. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] enlarge a mirrored pool
Ivan Wang wrote: Hi all, Forgive me if this is a dumb question. Is it possible for a two-disk mirrored zpool to be seamlessly enlarged by gradually replacing previous disk with larger one? Say, in a constrained desktop, only space for two internal disks is available, could I just begin with two 160G disks, then at some time, replace one of the 160G with 250G, resilvering, then replace another 160G, and finally get a two-disk 250G mirrored pool? Cheers, Ivan. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss Yes. After both drives are replaced, you will automatically see the additional space. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca14-102 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] enlarge a mirrored pool
Erik Trimble wrote: Ivan Wang wrote: Hi all, Forgive me if this is a dumb question. Is it possible for a two-disk mirrored zpool to be seamlessly enlarged by gradually replacing previous disk with larger one? Say, in a constrained desktop, only space for two internal disks is available, could I just begin with two 160G disks, then at some time, replace one of the 160G with 250G, resilvering, then replace another 160G, and finally get a two-disk 250G mirrored pool? Cheers, Ivan. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss Yes. After both drives are replaced, you will automatically see the additional space. I believe currently after the last replace an import/export sequence is needed to force zfs to see the increased size. Neil. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
