Yes, please report the results of the raidz2 test. My example solution
was a quick production fix, where performance was paramount to
capacity. If raidz2 solves it, it would be great!
On Nov 20, 2007 7:25 AM, Tim <linux_geek at comcast.net> wrote:
> Well I recreated my Pool to 3 mirrored pairs. {RAID 10}
>
> Pro = I can lose 3 disks and survive
> Con = I lose 3 disks to the mirrors.
>
> Ran 'iozone' tests from 2 clients without issue.
>
> Now I think, I may try Raidz2.
>
>
>
>
> Joe Little wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 2007 12:29 PM, Tim <linux_geek at comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Ok I stand corrected.
> >>
> >> Nov 19 12:08:59 timsnas marvell88sx: [ID 670675 kern.info] NOTICE:
> >> marvell88sx0: device on port 0 reset: initialization
> >> Nov 19 12:08:59 timsnas marvell88sx: [ID 670675 kern.info] NOTICE:
> >> marvell88sx0: device on port 1 reset: initialization
> >> Nov 19 12:08:59 timsnas marvell88sx: [ID 670675 kern.info] NOTICE:
> >> marvell88sx0: device on port 2 reset: initialization
> >> Nov 19 12:08:59 timsnas marvell88sx: [ID 670675 kern.info] NOTICE:
> >> marvell88sx0: device on port 3 reset: initialization
> >> Nov 19 12:08:59 timsnas marvell88sx: [ID 670675 kern.info] NOTICE:
> >> marvell88sx0: device on port 4 reset: initialization
> >> Nov 19 12:08:59 timsnas marvell88sx: [ID 670675 kern.info] NOTICE:
> >> marvell88sx0: device on port 5 reset: initialization
> >> Nov 19 12:08:59 timsnas marvell88sx: [ID 670675 kern.info] NOTICE:
> >> marvell88sx0: device on port 6 reset: initialization
> >> Nov 19 12:08:59 timsnas marvell88sx: [ID 670675 kern.info] NOTICE:
> >> marvell88sx0: device on port 7 reset: initialization
> >>
> >
> > Yes, and I have a X4500. The results cause a pause (approx 10-30
> > seconds felt by NFS clients) on the pool if its RAIDZ configured. I
> > went with RAIDZ2. Either case, a reset will delay any i/o if that disk
> > is being requested. In a RAID10 or RAIDZ2, it would appear that there
> > is always a second disk to available while one port resets. If the
> > entire card resets like the above, none of the proposed configuration
> > alleviates what you've seen.
> >
> > I'm hoping to get my hands on the LSI 8708 or 8888 card as that may
> > prove to be a better SATA card. If its use as RAID, it has both pluses
> > and minuses, as hiding the drives protects you from the above but
> > negates some of the ZFS value.
> >
> >> Message was edited by:
> >> tmano
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nfs-discuss mailing list
> >> nfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> >>
> >
>
