Alan,
I'm using nexenta core rc4 which is based on nevada 81/82.
zfs casesensitivity is set to 'insensitive'
Best regards.
Maurilio.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Maybe a basic zfs question ...
I have a pool:
# zpool status backup
pool: backup
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
backupONLINE 0 0 0
mirror ONLINE 0 0 0
Hi,
I would like to continue this (maybe a bit outdated) thread with
the question:
1. How to create a netinstall image?
2. How to write the netinstall image back as an ISO9660 on DVD?
(after patching it for the zfsboot)
Roman
This message posted from opensolaris.org
We run a cron job that does a 'zpool status -x' to check for any degraded
pools. We just happened to find a pool degraded this morning by running 'zpool
status' by hand and were surprised that it was degraded as we didn't get a
notice from the cron job.
# uname -srvp
SunOS 5.11 snv_78 i386
#
While browsing the ZFS source code, I noticed that usr/src/cmd/
ztest/ztest.c, includes ztest_spa_rename(), a ZFS test which
renames a ZFS storage pool to a different name, tests the pool
under its new name, and then renames it back. I wonder why this
functionality was not exposed as
There is a write up of similar findings and more information about
sharemgr
http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/nfs_zfs.html
Unfortunately I don't see anything that says those changes will be in
u5.
Shawn
On Feb 5, 2008, at 8:21 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
I was curious to see
On Solaris 10 u3 (11/06) I can execute the following:
bash-3.00# mdb -k
Loading modules: [ unix krtld genunix specfs dtrace ufs sd pcipsy ip sctp usba
nca md zfs random ipc nfs crypto cpc fctl fcip logindmux ptm sppp ]
arc::print
{
anon = ARC_anon
mru = ARC_mru
mru_ghost =
I disabled file prefetch and there was no effect.
Here are some performance numbers. Note that, when the application server used
a ZFS file system to save its data, the transaction took TWICE as long. For
some reason, though, iostat is showing 5x as much disk writing (to the physical
disks)
On Feb 4, 2008, at 5:10 PM, Marion Hakanson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
FYI, you can use the '-c' option to compare results from various
runs and
have one single report to look at.
That's a handy feature. I've added a couple of such comparisons:
Jure Pečar wrote:
Maybe a basic zfs question ...
I have a pool:
# zpool status backup
pool: backup
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
backupONLINE 0 0 0
mirror ONLINE 0
Hello everybody,
I'm thinking of building out a second machine as a backup for our mail
spool where I push out regular filesystem snapshots, something like a
warm/hot spare situation.
Our mail spool is currently running snv_67 and the new machine would
probably be running whatever the
On Feb 6, 2008 6:36 PM, William Fretts-Saxton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here are some performance numbers. Note that, when the
application server used a ZFS file system to save its data, the
transaction took TWICE as long. For some reason, though, iostat is
showing 5x as much disk writing (to
It is a striped/mirror:
# zpool status
NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
pool1 ONLINE 0 0 0
mirrorONLINE 0 0 0
c0t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror
I now have a improved sata and marvell88sx driver modules that
deal with various error conditions in a much more solid way.
Changes include reducing the number of required device resets,
properly reporting media errors (rather than no additional sense),
clearing aborted packets more rapidly so
Solaris 10u4 eh?
Sounds a lot like fsync issues we want into, trying to run Cyrus mail-server
spools in ZFS.
This was highlighted for us by the filebench software varmail test.
OpenSolaris nv78 however worked very well.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
William Fretts-Saxton william.fretts.saxton at sun.com writes:
I disabled file prefetch and there was no effect.
Here are some performance numbers. Note that, when the application server
used a ZFS file system to save its data, the transaction took TWICE as long.
For some reason, though,
Hi all, Any thoughts on if and when ZFS, MySQL, and Lustre 1.8 (and
beyond) will work together and be supported so by Sun?
- Network Systems Architect
Advanced Digital Systems Internet
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Marc Bevand wrote:
William Fretts-Saxton william.fretts.saxton at sun.com writes:
I disabled file prefetch and there was no effect.
Here are some performance numbers. Note that, when the application server
used a ZFS file system to save its data, the transaction took TWICE as long.
For
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Your finding for random reads with or without NCQ match my findings: http://
blogs.sun.com/erickustarz/entry/ncq_performance_analysis
Disabling NCQ looks like a very tiny win for the multi-stream read case. I
found a much bigger win, but i was doing RAID-0 instead
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Here are some performance numbers. Note that, when the application server
used a ZFS file system to save its data, the transaction took TWICE as long.
For some reason, though, iostat is showing 5x as much disk writing (to the
physical disks) on the ZFS partition. Can
Neil Perrin Neil.Perrin at Sun.COM writes:
The ZIL doesn't do a lot of extra IO. It usually just does one write per
synchronous request and will batch up multiple writes into the same log
block if possible.
Ok. I was wrong then. Well, William, I think Marion Hakanson has the
most plausible
Hey all -
I'm working on an interesting issue where I'm seeing ZFS being quite
cranky about writing O_SYNC written blocks.
Bottom line is that I have a small test case that does essentially this:
open file for writing -- O_SYNC
loop(
write() 8KB of random data
print time taken
22 matches
Mail list logo
