Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
Yup, I'm watching that card closely. No Solaris drivers yet, but hopefully somebody will realise just how good that could be for the ZIL and work on some. Just the 80GB $2,400 card would make a huge difference to write performance. For use with VMware and NFS it would be a godsend. 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 in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
I strongly agree most of the comments. I quess, I tried to keep it simple, perhaps a little bit too simple. If I am not mistaken ,most of the Nand disks will virtualize the underlying cells so even you update the same sector update will be made somewhere else. So the time to corrupt an enterprise grade SSD (nand based) will be quite long although I wouldn't recommend to keep the swap file or any sort of fast changing cache on those drives. Think that you have a 146 GB SSD and the wirte cycle is around 100k And you can write/update data at 10 MB/sec (depends on the IO pattern could be a lot slower or a lot higher) It will take 4 Hours or 14,400 sec's to fully populate the drive. Multiply this with 100k , this is 45 Years. If the virtualisation algorithmws work at %25 efficiency this will be 10 years plus. And if I am not mistaken all enterprise NAnds and most consumer Nands do read after write verify and they will mark bad blocks. This will also increase the usable time as you will not be marking a whole device failed , just a cell... Please correct me where I am wrong , as I am not quite knowledgeble on this subject Mertol Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212335 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn Sent: 27 Mayıs 2008 Salı 18:55 To: Mertol Ozyoney Cc: 'ZFS Discuss' Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08 On Mon, 26 May 2008, Mertol Ozyoney wrote: It's true that NAND based falsh's wear out under heavy load. Regular consumer grade nand drives will wear out the extra cells pretty rapidly. (in a year or so) However enterprise grade SSD disks are fine tuned to with stand continous writes for more than 10 years It is incorrect to classify wear in terms of years without also specifying update behavior. NAND FLASH sectors can withstand 100,000 to (sometimes) 1,000,000 write-erase-cycles. In normal filesystem use, there are far more reads than writes and the size of the storage device is much larger than the the data re-written. Even in server use, only a small fraction of the data is updated. A device used to cache writes will be written to as often as it is read from (or perhaps more often). If the cache device storage is fully occupied, then wear leveling algorithms based on statistics do not have much opportunity to work. If the underlying device sectors are good for 100,000 write-erase-cycles and the entire device is re-written once per second, then the device is not going to last very long (27 hours). Of course the write performance for these devices is quite poor (8-120MB/second) and the write performace seems to be proportional to the total storage size so it is quite unlikely that you could re-write a suitably performant device once per second. The performance of FLASH SSDs does not seem very appropriate for use as a write cache device. There is a useful guide to these devices at http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-buyers-guide.html;. SRAM-based cache devices which plug into a PCI-X or PCI-Express slot seem far more appropriate for use as a write cache than a slow SATA device. At least 5X or 10X the performance is available by this means. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
By the way. All enterprise SSD's have internal Dram based cache. Some vendors may quote the write performance of the internal RAM device. Normally Nand drives due to read after write operations and several other reasons will not perform quite good under write based load. Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212335 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn Sent: 27 Mayıs 2008 Salı 20:22 To: Tim Cc: ZFS Discuss Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08 On Tue, 27 May 2008, Tim wrote: You're still concentrating on consumer level drives. The stec drives emc is using for instance, exhibit none of the behaviors you describe. How long have you been working for STEC? ;-) Looking at the specifications for STEC SSDs I see that they are very good at IOPS (probably many times faster than the Solaris I/O stack). Write performance of the fastest product (ZEUS iops) is similar to a typical SAS hard drive, with the remaining products being much slower. This all that STEC has to say about FLASH lifetime in their products: http://www.stec-inc.com/technology/flash_life_support.php;. There are no hard facts to be found there. The STEC SSDs are targeted towards being a replacement for a traditional hard drive. There is no mention of lifetime when used as a write-intensive cache device. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Mertol Ozyoney wrote: Think that you have a 146 GB SSD and the wirte cycle is around 100k And you can write/update data at 10 MB/sec (depends on the IO pattern could be a lot slower or a lot higher) It will take 4 Hours or 14,400 sec's to fully populate the drive. Multiply this with 100k , this is 45 Years. If the virtualisation algorithmws work at %25 efficiency this will be 10 years plus. Please correct me where I am wrong , as I am not quite knowledgeble on this subject It seems that we are in agreement that expected lifetime depends on the usage model. Lifetime will be vastly longer if the drive is used as a normal filesystem disk as compared to being using as a RAID write cache device. I have not heard of any RAID arrays which use FLASH for their write cache. They all use battery backed SRAM (or similar). Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
There is something more to consider with SSDs uses as a cache device. why use SATA as the interface? perhaps http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34065/135/ would be better? (no experience) cards will start at 80 GB and will scale to 320 and 640 GB next year. By the end of 2008, Fusion io also hopes to roll out a 1.2 TB card. 160 parallel pipelines that can read data at 800 megabytes per second and write at 600 MB/sec 4K blocks and then streaming eight simultaneous 1 GB reads and writes. In that test, the ioDrive clocked in at 100,000 operations per second... beat $30 dollars a GB, ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
Rob Logan wrote: There is something more to consider with SSDs uses as a cache device. why use SATA as the interface? perhaps http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34065/135/ would be better? (no experience) cards will start at 80 GB and will scale to 320 and 640 GB next year. By the end of 2008, Fusion io also hopes to roll out a 1.2 TB card. 160 parallel pipelines that can read data at 800 megabytes per second and write at 600 MB/sec 4K blocks and then streaming eight simultaneous 1 GB reads and writes. In that test, the ioDrive clocked in at 100,000 operations per second... beat $30 dollars a GB, ___ The key take-away here is that the SSD guys *could* do all sorts of neat things to optimize for speed, reliability, and cost. They have many more technology options than the spinning rust guys. My advice: don't bet against Moore's law :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Rob Logan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is something more to consider with SSDs uses as a cache device. why use SATA as the interface? perhaps http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34065/135/ would be better? (no experience) cards will start at 80 GB and will scale to 320 and 640 GB next year. By the end of 2008, Fusion io also hopes to roll out a 1.2 TB card. 160 parallel pipelines that can read data at 800 megabytes per second and write at 600 MB/sec 4K blocks and then streaming eight simultaneous 1 GB reads and writes. In that test, the ioDrive clocked in at 100,000 operations per second... beat $30 dollars a GB, These could be rather interesting as swap devices. On the face of it, $30/GB is pretty close to the list price of taking a T5240 from 32 GB to 64 GB. However, it is *a lot* less than feeding system-board DIMM slots to workloads that use a lot of RAM but are fairly inactive. As such, a $10k PCIe card may be able to allow a $42k 64 GB T5240 handle 5+ times the number of not-too-busy J2EE instances. If anyone's done any modelling or testing of such an idea, I'd love to hear about it. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On May 27, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Rob Logan wrote: There is something more to consider with SSDs uses as a cache device. why use SATA as the interface? perhaps http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34065/135/ would be better? (no experience) We are pretty happy with RAMSAN SSD's (ours is RAM based, not flash). -Andy cards will start at 80 GB and will scale to 320 and 640 GB next year. By the end of 2008, Fusion io also hopes to roll out a 1.2 TB card. 160 parallel pipelines that can read data at 800 megabytes per second and write at 600 MB/sec 4K blocks and then streaming eight simultaneous 1 GB reads and writes. In that test, the ioDrive clocked in at 100,000 operations per second... beat $30 dollars a GB, ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On May 23, 2008, at 22:21, Richard Elling wrote: Consider a case where you might use large, slow SATA drives (1 TByte, 7,200 rpm) for the main storage, and a single small, fast (36 GByte, 15krpm) drive for the L2ARC. This might provide a reasonable cost/performance trade-off. Ooh, neat; I hadn't considered that. Cool, thanks. :) -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Consider a case where you might use large, slow SATA drives (1 TByte, 7,200 rpm) for the main storage, and a single small, fast (36 GByte, 15krpm) drive for the L2ARC. This might provide a reasonable cost/performance trade-off. In this case (or in any other case where a cache device is used), does the cache improve write performance or only reads? I presume it cannot increase write performance as the cache is considered volatile, so the write couldn't be committed until the data had left the cache device? From the ZFS admin guide [1] Using cache devices provide the greatest performance improvement for random read-workloads of mostly static content. I'm not sure if that means no performance increase for writes, or just not very much? [1]http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-2271/gaynr?a=view -- Hugh Saunders ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 05:26:34PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Fri, 23 May 2008, Bill McGonigle wrote: The remote-disk cache makes perfect sense. I'm curious if there are measurable benefits for caching local disks as well? NAND-flash SSD drives have good 'seek' and slow transfer, IIRC, but that might still be useful for lots of small reads where seek is everything. NAND-flash SSD drives also wear out. They are not very useful as a cache device which is written to repetitively. A busy server could likely wear one out in just a day or two unless the drive contains aggressive hardware-based write leveling so that it might survive a few more days, depending on how large the device is. Cache devices are usually much smaller and run a lot hotter than a normal filesystem. Someone (Gigabyte, are you listening?) need to make something like the iRAM, only with more capacity and bump it up to 3.0Gbps. SAS would be nice since you could load a nice controller up with them. Does anyone make a 3.5 HDD format RAM disk system that isn't horribly expensive? Backing to disk wouldn't matter to me, but a battery that could hold at least 30 minutes of data would be nice. -brian -- Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix. -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
cache improve write performance or only reads? L2ARC cache device is for reads... for write you want Intent Log The ZFS Intent Log (ZIL) satisfies POSIX requirements for synchronous transactions. For instance, databases often require their transactions to be on stable storage devices when returning from a system call. NFS and other applica- tions can also use fsync() to ensure data stability. By default, the intent log is allocated from blocks within the main pool. However, it might be possible to get better per- formance using separate intent log devices such as NVRAM or a dedicated disk. For example: # zpool create pool c0d0 c1d0 log c2d0 Multiple log devices can also be specified, and they can be mirrored. See the EXAMPLES section for an example of mirror- ing multiple log devices. Log devices can be added, replaced, attached, detached, and imported and exported as part of the larger pool. but don't underestimate the speed of several slow vdevs vs one fast vdev. Does anyone make a 3.5 HDD format RAM disk system that isn't horribly http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2007-July/041956.html perhaps adding ram to the system would be more flexible? Rob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 4:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cache improve write performance or only reads? L2ARC cache device is for reads... for write you want Intent Log Thanks for answering my question, I had seen mention of intent log devices, but wasn't sure of their purpose. If only one significantly faster disk is available, would it make sense to slice it and use a slice for L2ARC and a slice for ZIL? or would that cause horrible thrashing? -- Hugh Saunders ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
Hugh Saunders wrote: On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 4:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cache improve write performance or only reads? L2ARC cache device is for reads... for write you want Intent Log Thanks for answering my question, I had seen mention of intent log devices, but wasn't sure of their purpose. If only one significantly faster disk is available, would it make sense to slice it and use a slice for L2ARC and a slice for ZIL? or would that cause horrible thrashing? I wouldn't recommend this configuration. As you say it would thrash the head. Log devices mainly need to write fast as they only ever are read once on reboot if there's uncommitted transactions. Whereas cache devices require a fast read as the write can be done slowly and asynchronously. So a common device sliced for use as both purposes wouldn't work well unless it was both fast read and write and had minimal seek times (nvram, ss disk). Neil. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On May 22, 2008, at 19:54, Richard Elling wrote: The Adaptive Replacement Cache (ARC) uses main memory as a read cache. But sometimes people want high performance, but don't want to spend money on main memory. So, the Level-2 ARC can be placed on a block device, such as a fast [solid state] disk which may even be volatile. The remote-disk cache makes perfect sense. I'm curious if there are measurable benefits for caching local disks as well? NAND-flash SSD drives have good 'seek' and slow transfer, IIRC, but that might still be useful for lots of small reads where seek is everything. I'm not quite understanding the argument for a being read-only so it can be used on volatile SDRAM-based SSD's, though. Those tend to be much, much more expensive than main memory, right? So, why would anybody buy one for cache - is it so they can front a really massive pool of disks that would exhaust market-available maximum main memory sizes? -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On Fri, 23 May 2008, Bill McGonigle wrote: The remote-disk cache makes perfect sense. I'm curious if there are measurable benefits for caching local disks as well? NAND-flash SSD drives have good 'seek' and slow transfer, IIRC, but that might still be useful for lots of small reads where seek is everything. NAND-flash SSD drives also wear out. They are not very useful as a cache device which is written to repetitively. A busy server could likely wear one out in just a day or two unless the drive contains aggressive hardware-based write leveling so that it might survive a few more days, depending on how large the device is. Cache devices are usually much smaller and run a lot hotter than a normal filesystem. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
measurable benefits for caching local disks as well? NAND-flash SSD I'm confused, the only reason I can think of making a To create a pool with cache devices, specify a cache vdev with any number of devices. For example: # zpool create pool c0d0 c1d0 cache c2d0 c3d0 Cache devices cannot be mirrored or part of a raidz confi- guration. If a read error is encountered on a cache device, that read I/O is reissued to the original storage pool dev- ice, which might be part of a mirrored or raidz configuration. The content of the cache devices is considered volatile, as is the case with other system caches. device non-volatile was to fill the ARC after reboot, and the in ram ARC pointers for the cache device will take quite abit of ram too, so perhaps spending the $$ on more system ram rather than a SSD cache device would be better? unless you have really slow iscsi vdevs :-) Rob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: measurable benefits for caching local disks as well? NAND-flash SSD I'm confused, the only reason I can think of making a To create a pool with cache devices, specify a cache vdev with any number of devices. For example: # zpool create pool c0d0 c1d0 cache c2d0 c3d0 Cache devices cannot be mirrored or part of a raidz confi- guration. If a read error is encountered on a cache device, that read I/O is reissued to the original storage pool dev- ice, which might be part of a mirrored or raidz configuration. The content of the cache devices is considered volatile, as is the case with other system caches. device non-volatile was to fill the ARC after reboot, and the in ram ARC pointers for the cache device will take quite abit of ram too, so perhaps spending the $$ on more system ram rather than a SSD cache device would be better? unless you have really slow iscsi vdevs :-) Consider a case where you might use large, slow SATA drives (1 TByte, 7,200 rpm) for the main storage, and a single small, fast (36 GByte, 15krpm) drive for the L2ARC. This might provide a reasonable cost/performance trade-off. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robin Guo wrote: | At least, s10u6 will contain L2ARC cache, ZFS as root filesystem, etc.. Any detail about this L2ARC thing?. I see some references in Google (a cache device) but no in deep description. - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ ~ _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ Things are not so easy _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ My name is Dump, Core Dump _/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro - Leibniz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBSDXu85lgi5GaxT1NAQJRNQP+LauaUCQ+rdV6AYTe1ZK/Y9LpPEfCa+U8 hkuCnUdqJiqFLDM/TDMRLNkK/CmzhmjTRyF3cu054MNJpiw8MqRc3/pUQUgV/NVX ot2J90Qwwrsz7lAOItBnGLMnM/yShOovpb5joZjPT/A14OZXYNFmlzDrMBHjyRSG jjXhmLbrJD4= =DiFU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
Jesus Cea wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Robin Guo wrote: | At least, s10u6 will contain L2ARC cache, ZFS as root filesystem, etc.. Any detail about this L2ARC thing?. I see some references in Google (a cache device) but no in deep description. Sure. The concept is quite simple, really. We observe that solid state memories can be very fast, when compared to spinning rust (disk) drives. The Adaptive Replacement Cache (ARC) uses main memory as a read cache. But sometimes people want high performance, but don't want to spend money on main memory. So, the Level-2 ARC can be placed on a block device, such as a fast [solid state] disk which may even be volatile. This may be very useful for those cases where the actual drive is located far away in time (eg across the internet) but near-by, fast disks are readily available. Since the L2ARC is only a read cache, it doesn't have to be nonvolatile. This opens up some interesting possibilities for some applications which have large data stored ( RAM) where you might get some significant performance improvements with local, fast devices. The PSARC case materials go into some detail: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2007/618/ -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
| So, from a feature perspective it looks like S10U6 is going to be in | pretty good shape ZFS-wise. If only someone could speak to (perhaps | under the cloak of anonymity ;) ) the timing side :). For what it's worth, back in January or so we were told that S10U6 was scheduled for August. Given that we were told more or less the same thing about S10U4 last year and it slipped somewhat, I'm not expecting S10U6 before about October or so. - cks ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
Hi Paul, I believe the goal is to come out w/ new Solaris updates every 4-6 months and sometimes are known as quarterly updates. Regards. Original Message Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08 From: Paul B. Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robin Guo [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Fri May 16 15:06:02 2008 So, from a feature perspective it looks like S10U6 is going to be in pretty good shape ZFS-wise. If only someone could speak to (perhaps under the cloak of anonymity ;) ) the timing side :). Given U5 barely came out, I wouldn't expect U6 anytime soon :(. Thanks.. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
Hi again, I sort of take that back, here's the past history: Solaris 10 3/05 = Solaris 10 RR 1/05 Solaris 10 1/06 = Update 1 Solaris 10 6/06 = Update 2 Solaris 10 11/06 = Update 3 Solaris 10 8/07 = Update 4 Solaris 10 5/08 = Update 5 I did say it was a goal though. Original Message Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08 From: Daryl Doami [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Paul B. Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Fri May 16 22:59:13 2008 Hi Paul, I believe the goal is to come out w/ new Solaris updates every 4-6 months and sometimes are known as quarterly updates. Regards. Original Message Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08 From: Paul B. Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robin Guo [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Date: Fri May 16 15:06:02 2008 So, from a feature perspective it looks like S10U6 is going to be in pretty good shape ZFS-wise. If only someone could speak to (perhaps under the cloak of anonymity ;) ) the timing side :). Given U5 barely came out, I wouldn't expect U6 anytime soon :(. Thanks.. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:30:27AM +0800, Robin Guo wrote: Hi, Paul At least, s10u6 will contain L2ARC cache, ZFS as root filesystem, etc.. As far as root zfs goes, are there any plans to support more than just single disks or mirrors in U6, or will that be for a later date? -brian -- Coding in C is like sending a 3 year old to do groceries. You gotta tell them exactly what you want or you'll end up with a cupboard full of pop tarts and pancake mix. -- IRC User (http://www.bash.org/?841435) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
Hi, Brian You mean stripe type with multiple-disks or raidz type? I'm afraid it's still single disk or mirrors only. If opensolaris start new project of this kind of feature, it'll be backport to s10u* eventually, but that's need some time to go, sounds no possibility in U6, I think. Brian Hechinger wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 09:30:27AM +0800, Robin Guo wrote: Hi, Paul At least, s10u6 will contain L2ARC cache, ZFS as root filesystem, etc.. As far as root zfs goes, are there any plans to support more than just single disks or mirrors in U6, or will that be for a later date? -brian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
Robin Guo wrote: Hi, Brian You mean stripe type with multiple-disks or raidz type? I'm afraid it's still single disk or mirrors only. If opensolaris start new project of this kind of feature, it'll be backport to s10u* eventually, but that's need some time to go, sounds no possibility in U6, I think. Not necessarily true. Not all things in OpenSolaris get backported and not all future ZFS features are guaranteed to get backported eventually. For example I have no current plans to backport the ZFS Crypto functionality. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
The issues with CIFS is not just complexity; it's the total amount of incompatible change in the kernel that we had to make in order to make the CIFS protocol a first class citizen in Solaris. This includes changes in the VFS layer which would break all S10 file systems. So in a very real sense CIFS simply cannot be backported to S10. -- Fred On May 16, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote: On Thu, 15 May 2008, Robin Guo wrote: The most feature and bugfix so far towards Navada 87 (or 88? ) will backport into s10u6. It's about the same (I mean from outside viewer, not inside) with openSolaris 05/08, but certainly, some other features as CIFS has no plan to backport to s10u6 yet, so ZFS will has fully ready but no effect on these kind of area. That depend on how they co- operate. Yah, I've heard that the CIFS stuff was way too many changes to backport, guess that is going to have to wait until Solaris 11. So, from a feature perspective it looks like S10U6 is going to be in pretty good shape ZFS-wise. If only someone could speak to (perhaps under the cloak of anonymity ;) ) the timing side :). Given U5 barely came out, I wouldn't expect U6 anytime soon :(. Thanks... -- 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 -- Fred Zlotnick Senior Director, Solaris NAS Sun Microsystems, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] x81142/+1 650 352 9298 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 03:12:02PM -0700, Zlotnick Fred wrote: The issues with CIFS is not just complexity; it's the total amount of incompatible change in the kernel that we had to make in order to make the CIFS protocol a first class citizen in Solaris. This includes changes in the VFS layer which would break all S10 file systems. So in a very real sense CIFS simply cannot be backported to S10. However, the same arguments were made explaining the difficulty backporting ZFS and GRUB boot to Solaris 10. Adam -- Adam Leventhal, Fishworkshttp://blogs.sun.com/ahl ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
Hi, Paul The most feature and bugfix so far towards Navada 87 (or 88? ) will backport into s10u6. It's about the same (I mean from outside viewer, not inside) with openSolaris 05/08, but certainly, some other features as CIFS has no plan to backport to s10u6 yet, so ZFS will has fully ready but no effect on these kind of area. That depend on how they co-operate. At least, s10u6 will contain L2ARC cache, ZFS as root filesystem, etc.. Paul B. Henson wrote: We've been working on a prototype of a ZFS file server for a while now, based on Solaris 10. Now that official support is available for openSolaris, we are looking into that as a possible option as well. openSolaris definitely has a greater feature set, but is still a bit rough around the edges for production use. I've heard that a considerable amount of ZFS improvements are slated to show up in S10U6. I was wondering if anybody could give an unofficial list of what will probably be deployed in S10U6, and how that will compare feature wise to openSolaris 05/08. Some rough guess at an ETA would also be nice :). Thanks... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
I was hoping that in U5 at least ZFS version 5 would be included but it was not, do you think that will be in U6? On Fri, 16 May 2008, Robin Guo wrote: Hi, Paul The most feature and bugfix so far towards Navada 87 (or 88? ) will backport into s10u6. It's about the same (I mean from outside viewer, not inside) with openSolaris 05/08, but certainly, some other features as CIFS has no plan to backport to s10u6 yet, so ZFS will has fully ready but no effect on these kind of area. That depend on how they co-operate. At least, s10u6 will contain L2ARC cache, ZFS as root filesystem, etc.. Paul B. Henson wrote: We've been working on a prototype of a ZFS file server for a while now, based on Solaris 10. Now that official support is available for openSolaris, we are looking into that as a possible option as well. openSolaris definitely has a greater feature set, but is still a bit rough around the edges for production use. I've heard that a considerable amount of ZFS improvements are slated to show up in S10U6. I was wondering if anybody could give an unofficial list of what will probably be deployed in S10U6, and how that will compare feature wise to openSolaris 05/08. Some rough guess at an ETA would also be nice :). Thanks... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss !DSPAM:122,482ce24518355742411484! ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS in S10U6 vs openSolaris 05/08
Hi, Krzys, Definitely, s10u6_01 ZFS's version is 10 already, I never expect it'll downgrade :) U5 only inlcude bugfix but without great ZFS feature included, that's a pity, but anyway, s10u6 will come, sooner or later. Krzys wrote: I was hoping that in U5 at least ZFS version 5 would be included but it was not, do you think that will be in U6? On Fri, 16 May 2008, Robin Guo wrote: Hi, Paul The most feature and bugfix so far towards Navada 87 (or 88? ) will backport into s10u6. It's about the same (I mean from outside viewer, not inside) with openSolaris 05/08, but certainly, some other features as CIFS has no plan to backport to s10u6 yet, so ZFS will has fully ready but no effect on these kind of area. That depend on how they co-operate. At least, s10u6 will contain L2ARC cache, ZFS as root filesystem, etc.. Paul B. Henson wrote: We've been working on a prototype of a ZFS file server for a while now, based on Solaris 10. Now that official support is available for openSolaris, we are looking into that as a possible option as well. openSolaris definitely has a greater feature set, but is still a bit rough around the edges for production use. I've heard that a considerable amount of ZFS improvements are slated to show up in S10U6. I was wondering if anybody could give an unofficial list of what will probably be deployed in S10U6, and how that will compare feature wise to openSolaris 05/08. Some rough guess at an ETA would also be nice :). Thanks... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss !DSPAM:122,482ce24518355742411484! -- Regards, Robin Guo, Xue-Bin Guo Solaris Kernel and Data Service QE, Sun China Engineering and Reserch Institute Phone: +86 10 82618200 +82296 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://blogs.sun.com/robinguo ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
