Re: [zfs-discuss] doubt on solaris 10
dudekula mastan wrote: Hi ALL, Is it possible to install solaris 10 on HP-VISUALIZE XL - CLASS server ? The ZFS discussion alias is probably not the best place to ask this. In general they way to find out about Solaris support on a particular hardware platform is to look at the hardware compatibility list: http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/ -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Usage in Warehousing (lengthy intro)
Anton B. Rang writes: If your database performance is dominated by sequential reads, ZFS may not be the best solution from a performance perspective. Because ZFS uses a write-anywhere layout, any database table which is being updated will quickly become scattered on the disk, so that sequential read patterns become random reads. While for OLTP our best practice is to set the ZFS recordsize to match the DB blocksize, for DSS we would advise to run without such tuning. True the sequential reads becomes random reads but of 128K records and that should still allow to draw close to 20-25MB/s per [modern] disk. So to reach your goal of 500MB/s++ you would need 20++ disks. -r Of course, ZFS has other benefits, such as ease of use and protection from many sources of data corruption; if you want to use ZFS in this application, though, I'd expect that you will need substantially more raw I/O bandwidth than UFS or QFS (which update in place) would require. (If you have predictable access patterns to the tables, a QFS setup which ties certain tables to particular LUNs using stripe groups might work well, as you can guarantee that accesses to one table will not interfere with accesses to another.) As always, your application is the real test. ;-) This message posted from opensolaris.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
[zfs-discuss] Re: disappearing mount - expected behavior?
What happens is that /home/thomas/zfs gets mounted and then the automounter starts. (Or /home/thomas is found missing and then the zfs mount is not completed) Probably requires legacy mount point. Casper ___ I'm experiencing this same behavior (ZFS NFS mounts don't show after reboot) with b50 and was hoping someone could outline a little clearer for those of us not as intimately familiar with Solaris innards. I can simply issue one 'zfs share zfsdata/[user1]' command and all my other ZFS-issued NFS mount points reappear. My /etc/auto_home is: [user1] 127.0.0.1:/export/home/[user1] [user2] 127.0.0.1:/export/home/[user2] etc... All SMF services are running normally - nothing in maintenance or failed to run. I dot NOT have any entries in my /etc/vfstab pertaining to the /export/home directories, all of which are on a ZFS pool. Should I simply comment out the /etc/auto_home entries? Or, should I create an entry in /etc/vfstab? If so, is one to /export/home sufficient or must one be done for each user [each user has his/her own ZFS pool]? Sorry, I'm just not sure what a legacy mount point is. Many thanks in advance! This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Can't destroy corrupted pool
Ok, so I'm planning on wiping my test pool that seems to have problems with non-spare disks being marked as spares, but I can't destroy it: # zpool destroy -f zmir cannot iterate filesystems: I/O error Anyone know how I can nuke this for good? Jim This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] weird problem
on a blade 1500... bash-3.00# zfs set sharenfs=rw pool cannot set sharenfs for 'pool': out of space bash-3.00# zpool iostat pool capacity operationsbandwidth pool used avail read write read write -- - - - - - - pool49.7G 807M 0 0169 39 bash-3.00# zfs get all pool NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE pool type filesystem - pool creation Sun Sep 10 1:29 2006 - pool used 33.1G - pool available 0 - pool referenced 32.4G - pool compressratio 1.01x - pool mountedyes- pool quota none default pool reservationnone default pool recordsize 128K default pool mountpoint /pool default pool sharenfs root=192.168.1.151,rw local pool checksum on default pool compressionon local pool atime on default pool deviceson default pool exec on default pool setuid on default pool readonly offdefault pool zoned offdefault pool snapdirhidden default pool aclmodegroupmask default pool aclinherit secure default okay i guess the question is why is zpool iostat pool output is different from zfs get all info James Dickens uadmin.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] hardware planning for storage server
Jakob Praher wrote: hi all, I'd like to build a solid storage server using zfs and opensolaris. The server more or less should have a NAS role, thus using nfsv4 to export the data to other nodes. ... what would be your reasonable advice? First of all, figure out what you need in terms of capacity and IOPS/sec. This will determine the number of spindles, cpus, network adaptors, etc. Keep in mind, for large sequential reads and large writes you can get a significant fraction of the max throughput of the drives; my 4 x 500 GB RAIDZ configuration does 150 MB/sec pretty consistently. If you're doing small random reads or writes, you'll be much more limited by the number of spindles and the way you configure them. - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Can't destroy corrupted pool
BTW, I'm also unable to export the pool -- same error. Jim This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] ZFS problems
Hello James, Saturday, November 18, 2006, 11:34:52 AM, you wrote: JM as far as I can see, your setup does not mee the minimum JM redundancy requirements for a Raid-Z, which is 3 devices. JM Since you only have 2 devices you are out on a limb. Actually only two disks for raid-z is fine and you get redundancy. However it would make more sense to do mirror with just two disk - performance would be better and available space would be the same. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Can't destroy corrupted pool
Nevermind: # zfs destroy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:28 cannot open '[EMAIL PROTECTED]:28': I/O error Jim 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] Can't destroy corrupted pool
You are likely hitting: 6397052 unmounting datasets should process /etc/mnttab instead of traverse DSL Which was fixed in build 46 of Nevada. In the meantime, you can remove /etc/zfs/zpool.cache manually and reboot, which will remove all your pools (which you can then re-import on an individual basis). - Eric On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 06:58:22AM -0800, Jim Hranicky wrote: Ok, so I'm planning on wiping my test pool that seems to have problems with non-spare disks being marked as spares, but I can't destroy it: # zpool destroy -f zmir cannot iterate filesystems: I/O error Anyone know how I can nuke this for good? Jim This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Can't destroy corrupted pool
You are likely hitting: 6397052 unmounting datasets should process /etc/mnttab instead of traverse DSL Which was fixed in build 46 of Nevada. In the meantime, you can remove /etc/zfs/zpool.cache manually and reboot, which will remove all your pools (which you can then re-import on an individual basis). I'm running b51, but I'll try deleting the cache. Jim This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [nfs-discuss] Re: [zfs-discuss] A Plea for Help: Thumper/ZFS/NFS/B43
Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello eric, Saturday, December 9, 2006, 7:07:49 PM, you wrote: ek Jim Mauro wrote: Could be NFS synchronous semantics on file create (followed by repeated flushing of the write cache). What kind of storage are you using (feel free to send privately if you need to) - is it a thumper? It's not clear why NFS-enforced synchronous semantics would induce different behavior than the same load to a local ZFS. ek Actually i forgot he had 'zil_disable' turned on, so it won't matter in ek this case. Ben, are you sure zil_disable was set to 1 BEFORE pool was imported? Yes, absolutely. Set var in /etc/system, reboot, system come up. That happened almost 2 months ago, long before this lock insanity problem popped up. To be clear, the ZIL issue was a problem for creation of a handful of files of any size. Untar'ing a file was a massive performance drain. This issue, other the other hand, deals with thousands of little files being created all the time (IMAP Locks). These are separate issues from my point of view. With ZIL slowness NFS performance was just slow but we didn't see massive CPU usage, with this issue on the other hand we were seeing waves in 10 second-ish cycles where the run queue would go sky high with 0 idle. Please see the earlier mails for examples of the symptoms. benr. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Can't destroy corrupted pool
This worked. I've restarted my testing but I've been fdisking each drive before I add it to the pool, and so far the system is behaving as expected when I spin a drive down, i.e., the hot spare gets automatically used. This makes me wonder if it's possible to ensure that the forced addition of a drive to a pool wipes the pool of any previous data, especially any zfs metadata. I'll keep the list posted as I continue my tests. Jim This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs exported a live filesystem
By mistake, I just exported my test filesystem while it was up and being served via NFS, causing my tar over NFS to start throwing stale file handle errors. Should I file this as a bug, or should I just not do that :- Ko, 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 exported a live filesystem
Jim Hranicky wrote: By mistake, I just exported my test filesystem while it was up and being served via NFS, causing my tar over NFS to start throwing stale file handle errors. So you had a pool and were sharing filesystems over NFS, NFS clients had active mounts, you removed /etc/zfs/zpool.cache, rebooted the machine, created a new pool with the same name (and same filesystem names)? If so, that's not a bug, the NFS clients have no knowledge that you've re-created the pool. Even though your namespace is the same, the filehandles will be different since your filesystems are different (and have different FSIDs). eric Should I file this as a bug, or should I just not do that :- Ko, This message posted from opensolaris.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 exported a live filesystem
Jim Hranicky wrote: By mistake, I just exported my test filesystem while it was up and being served via NFS, causing my tar over NFS to start throwing stale file handle errors. Should I file this as a bug, or should I just not do that :- Don't do that. The same should happen if you umount a shared UFS file system (or any other file system types). -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool mirror
Gino Ruopolo wrote: Hi All, we have some ZFS pools on production with more than 100s fs and more than 1000s snapshots on them. Now we do backups with zfs send/receive with some scripting but I'm searching for a way to mirror each zpool to an other one for backup purposes (so including all snapshots!). Is that possible? Not right now (without a bunch of shell-scripting). I'm working on being able to send a whole tree of filesystems their snapshots. Would that do what you want? --matt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Uber block corruption?
A while back we had a Sun engineer come to our office and talk about the benefits of ZFS. I asked him the question Can the uber block become corrupt and what happeneds if it does?, to which he did not have the answer but swore to me that he would get it to me. I still haven't gotten that answer and was wondering if someone here could enlighten me? 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] Uber block corruption?
IANA ZFS guru, but I have read explanations like this: When ZFS reads in the uberblock, it computes the uberblock's checksum and compares it against the stored checksum for that block. If they don't match, it uses another copy of the uberblock. Ross Hosman wrote: A while back we had a Sun engineer come to our office and talk about the benefits of ZFS. I asked him the question Can the uber block become corrupt and what happeneds if it does?, to which he did not have the answer but swore to me that he would get it to me. I still haven't gotten that answer and was wondering if someone here could enlighten me? -- -- Jeff VICTOR Sun Microsystemsjeff.victor @ sun.com OS AmbassadorSr. Technical Specialist Solaris 10 Zones FAQ:http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zones/faq -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Uber block corruption?
A while back we had a Sun engineer come to our office and talk about the benefits of ZFS. I asked him the question Can the uber block become corrupt and what happeneds if it does?, to which he did not have the answer but swore to me that he would get it to me. I still haven't gotten that answer and was wondering if someone here could enlighten me? Any data can become corrupt through a variety of processes. To reduce the chance of it affecting the integrety of the filesystem, there are multiple copies of the UB written, each with a checksum and a generation number. When starting up a pool, the oldest generation copy that checks properly will be used. If the import can't find any valid UB, then it's not going to have access to any data. Think of a UFS filesystem where all copies of the superblock are corrupt. So 'a' UB can become corrupt, but it is unlikely that 'all' UBs will become corrupt through something that doesn't also make all the data also corrupt or inaccessible. -- Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Technical Consultant TAOShttp://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] ZFS related kernel panic
Hello Richard, Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 7:01:17 AM, you wrote: RE Dale Ghent wrote: Similar to UFS's onerror mount option, I take it? RE Actually, it would be interesting to see how many customers change the RE onerror setting. We have some data, just need more days in the hour. Sometimes we do. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [nfs-discuss] Re: [zfs-discuss] A Plea for Help: Thumper/ZFS/NFS/B43
Hello Ben, Monday, December 11, 2006, 9:34:18 PM, you wrote: BR Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello eric, Saturday, December 9, 2006, 7:07:49 PM, you wrote: ek Jim Mauro wrote: Could be NFS synchronous semantics on file create (followed by repeated flushing of the write cache). What kind of storage are you using (feel free to send privately if you need to) - is it a thumper? It's not clear why NFS-enforced synchronous semantics would induce different behavior than the same load to a local ZFS. ek Actually i forgot he had 'zil_disable' turned on, so it won't matter in ek this case. Ben, are you sure zil_disable was set to 1 BEFORE pool was imported? BR Yes, absolutely. Set var in /etc/system, reboot, system come up. That BR happened almost 2 months ago, long before this lock insanity problem BR popped up. BR To be clear, the ZIL issue was a problem for creation of a handful of BR files of any size. Untar'ing a file was a massive performance drain. BR This issue, other the other hand, deals with thousands of little files BR being created all the time (IMAP Locks). These are separate issues from BR my point of view. With ZIL slowness NFS performance was just slow but BR we didn't see massive CPU usage, with this issue on the other hand we BR were seeing waves in 10 second-ish cycles where the run queue would go BR sky high with 0 idle. Please see the earlier mails for examples of the BR symptoms. Ok. And just another question - is nfs file system mounted with noac options on imap server and application is doing chdir() to nfs directories? I'm not sure if it's fixed - if not your nfs client on every chdir() will generate lot of small traffic to nfs server starving it of cpu. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Uber block corruption?
Hello Darren, Tuesday, December 12, 2006, 2:10:30 AM, you wrote: A while back we had a Sun engineer come to our office and talk about the benefits of ZFS. I asked him the question Can the uber block become corrupt and what happeneds if it does?, to which he did not have the answer but swore to me that he would get it to me. I still haven't gotten that answer and was wondering if someone here could enlighten me? DD Any data can become corrupt through a variety of processes. DD To reduce the chance of it affecting the integrety of the filesystem, DD there are multiple copies of the UB written, each with a checksum and a DD generation number. When starting up a pool, the oldest generation copy DD that checks properly will be used. If the import can't find any valid DD UB, then it's not going to have access to any data. Think of a UFS DD filesystem where all copies of the superblock are corrupt. Actually the latest UB, not the oldest. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Uber block corruption?
DD To reduce the chance of it affecting the integrety of the filesystem, DD there are multiple copies of the UB written, each with a checksum and a DD generation number. When starting up a pool, the oldest generation copy DD that checks properly will be used. If the import can't find any valid DD UB, then it's not going to have access to any data. Think of a UFS DD filesystem where all copies of the superblock are corrupt. Actually the latest UB, not the oldest. My *other* oldest... yeah. -- Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Technical Consultant TAOShttp://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [nfs-discuss] Re: [zfs-discuss] A Plea for Help: Thumper/ZFS/NFS/B43
BR Yes, absolutely. Set var in /etc/system, reboot, system come up. That BR happened almost 2 months ago, long before this lock insanity problem BR popped up. For the archives, a high level of lock activity can always be a problem. The worst cases I've experienced were with record locking over NFS. The worst offenders were programs written with a local file system in mind, especially PC-based applications. This has become one of the first things I check in such instances, and the network traffic will be consistently full of lock activity. Just one of those things you need to watch out for in a networked world :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Doubt on solaris 10 installation ..
Hi Everybody, I have some problems in solaris 10 installation. After installing the first CD , I removed the CD from CDrom , after that the machine is getting rebooting again and again. It is not asking second CD to install. If you have any idea. Please tell me. Thanks Regards Masthan __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS related kernel panic
Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Richard, Tuesday, December 5, 2006, 7:01:17 AM, you wrote: RE Dale Ghent wrote: Similar to UFS's onerror mount option, I take it? RE Actually, it would be interesting to see how many customers change the RE onerror setting. We have some data, just need more days in the hour. Sometimes we do. A preliminary look at a sample of the data shows that 1.6% do change this to something other than the default (panic). Though this is a statistically significant sample, it is skewed towards the high-end systems. A more detailed study would look at the instances where we had a problem, and the system did not panic. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs exported a live filesystem
On 12/12/2006, at 8:48 AM, Richard Elling wrote: Jim Hranicky wrote: By mistake, I just exported my test filesystem while it was up and being served via NFS, causing my tar over NFS to start throwing stale file handle errors. Should I file this as a bug, or should I just not do that :- Don't do that. The same should happen if you umount a shared UFS file system (or any other file system types). -- richard Except that it doesn't: # mount /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s0 /mnt # share /mnt # umount /mnt umount: /mnt busy # unshare /mnt # umount /mnt # ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
