Re: [zfs-discuss] Spare Won't Remove
Hi, Christ, I just verified this issue could simply reproduce in onnv, I've filed CR #6664649 to trace it. Thanks for report. # zpool create -f tank c3t5d0s1 spare c3t5d0s0 # mkfile 100m /var/tmp/file # zpool add tank sparc /var/tmp/file # zpool export tank # format c3t5d0 ( modify c3t5d0s0 to be unassigned) # rm /var/tmp/file # zpool import tank # zpool status -v tank pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t5d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c3t5d0s0 UNAVAIL cannot open /var/tmp/file UNAVAIL cannot open If the sparce device status as UNAVAIL, it cannot be removed by 'zpool remove', even I tried 'zpool scrub' and get no help. # zpool remove tank c3t5d0s0 # echo $? 0 # zpool remove tank /var/tmp/file # echo $? 0 # zpool status -v tank pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t5d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c3t5d0s0 UNAVAIL cannot open /var/tmp/file UNAVAIL cannot open Christopher Gibbs wrote: Oops, I forgot a step. I also upgraded the zpool in snv79b before I tried the remove. It is now version 10. On 2/15/08, Christopher Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The pool was exported from snv_73 and the spare was disconnected from the system. The OS was upgraded to snv_79b (SXDE 1/08) and the pool was re-imported. I think this weekend I'll try connecting a different drive to that controller and see if it will remove then. Thanks for your help. On 2/15/08, Robin Guo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Christopher, I tried by using raw files as the spare, remove the file, then 'zpool remove' , looks the raw files could be eliminated from the pool. But since you use the physical device, I suppose it might be a bug there, for the status of spare device has turned to be 'UNAVAIL'. Could you point out the OS you used? I might check with the latest onnv nightly to see if this issue exist. Christopher Gibbs wrote: I have a hot spare that was part of my zpool but is no longer connected to the system. I can run the zpool remove command and it returns fine but doesn't seem to do anything. I have tried adding and removing spares that are connected to the system and works properly. Is zpool remove failing because the disk is no longer connected to the system? # zpool remove tank c1d0s4 # zpool status pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM tankONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1ONLINE 0 0 0 c2d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c2d1ONLINE 0 0 0 c3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c3d1ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c1d0s4UNAVAIL cannot open errors: No known data errors -- 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 -- Chris -- 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] can't share a zfs
Hi, Jason, Could you succeed by these steps? # zpool create tank vdev # zfs set sharenfs=on tank # share [EMAIL PROTECTED] /tank rw The nfs server will be enable automatically while there's any shareable dataset exist, (sharenfs or sharesmb = on) jason wrote: -bash-3.2$ zfs share tank cannot share 'tank': share(1M) failed -bash-3.2$ how do i figure out what's wrong? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool shared between OSX and Solaris on a MacBook Pro
Peter Karlsson wrote: Hi, I got my MacBook pro set up to dual boot between Solaris and OSX and I have created a zpool to use as a shred storage for documents etc.. However got this strange thing when trying to access the zpool from Solaris, only root can see it?? I created the zpool on OSX as they are using an old version of the on disk format, if I create a zpool on Solaris all users can see it, strange What do you mean by only root can see it All files are owned by root ? Users don't see the datasets with zfs list ? Users don't see the mounted filesystems with df ? Users don't even see the pool with zpool status ? This looks strange: zpace delegation off default The default is on not off. What build of Solaris are you using ? Also see this: zpace/demo mountpoint /Volumes/zpace/demodefault Do you have a /Volumes directory on Solaris ? -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Regression with ZFS best practice
Hi all, I've just put my first ZFS into production, and users are complaining about some regressions. One problem for them is that now, they can't see all the users directories in the automount point: the homedirs used to be part of a single UFS, and were browsable with the correct autofs option. Now, following the ZFS best-practice, each user has his own FS - but being all shared separately, they're not browsable anymore. Is there a way to work around that, and have the same behaviour as before, ie, all homedirs shown in /home, whether they're mounted or not? TIA, Laurent 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] Regression with ZFS best practice
I've just put my first ZFS into production, and users are complaining about some regressions. One problem for them is that now, they can't see all the users directories in the automount point: the homedirs used to be part of a single UFS, and were browsable with the correct autofs option. Now, following the ZFS best-practice, each user has his own FS - but being all shared separately, they're not browsable anymore. Is there a way to work around that, and have the same behaviour as before, ie, all homedirs shown in /home, whether they're mounted or not? Remove -nobrowse from the map in auto_master. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Help with the best layout
Thanks everybody :) The solution i'm using now is the one where i backup to the usb disk and settle for a mirror on the two smaller disks. 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] Kernel panic on arc_buf_remove_ref() assertion
In this particular case will 127729-07 contain all the bug fixes in IDR127787-12 (or later?). I have also run into a few other kernel panics addressed in earlier revisions of this IDR but I am eager to get back on the main Sol10 branch. Thanks. On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:45:46PM -0800, Prabahar Jeyaram wrote: Any IDRXX (Released immediately) is the interim relief (Will also contains the fix) provided to the customers till the official patch (Usually takes longer to be released) is available. Patch is supposed to be consider as the permanent solution. -- Prabahar. Stuart Anderson wrote: Thanks for the information. How does the temporary patch 127729-07 relate to the IDR127787 (x86) which I believe also claims to fix this panic? -- Stuart Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/~anderson ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] filebench for Solaris 10?
On Feb 16, 2008, at 5:26 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Some of us are still using Solaris 10 since it is the version of Solaris released and supported by Sun. The 'filebench' software from SourceForge does not seem to install or work on Solaris 10. The 'pkgadd' command refuses to recognize the package, even when it is set to Solaris 2.4 mode. I was able to build the software but observation of what 'make install' does is that it installs into the private home directory of some hard-coded user. The 'make package' command builds an unusable package similar to the one on SourceForge. Hmm, i'll take a look... eric Are the filebench maintainers aware of this problem? Will a package which works for Solaris 10 (which some of us are still using) be posted? Thanks, 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] zpool shared between OSX and Solaris on a MacBook Pro
On Feb 19, 2008, at 17:27, Darren J Moffat wrote: Peter Karlsson wrote: Hi, I got my MacBook pro set up to dual boot between Solaris and OSX and I have created a zpool to use as a shred storage for documents etc.. However got this strange thing when trying to access the zpool from Solaris, only root can see it?? I created the zpool on OSX as they are using an old version of the on disk format, if I create a zpool on Solaris all users can see it, strange What do you mean by only root can see it As root: -bash-3.2# ls -ld /zpace drwxr-xr-x 8 root root 9 Feb 19 12:28 /zpace As myself: ls -ld /zpace /zpace: Permission denied bash-3.2$ cd /zpace bash: cd: /zpace: Permission denied So I create a zpool on Solaris -bash-3.2# zpool create ztst /export/home/tst/a /export/home/tst/b /export/home/tst/c bash-3.2$ ls -ld /ztst drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 2 Feb 19 17:23 /ztst bash-3.2$ cd /ztst So that works, so something is strange with the zpool I created in OSX All files are owned by root ? Nope, some files are owned by other users, Users don't see the datasets with zfs list ? Can: bash-3.2$ /sbin/zpool list NAMESIZE USED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT zpace61G 715M 60.3G 1% ONLINE - Users don't see the mounted filesystems with df ? Nope: /zpace (zpace ):124462673 blocks 124462673 files df: cannot statvfs /zpace/DB: Permission denied df: cannot statvfs /zpace/Download: Permission denied df: cannot statvfs /zpace/demo: Permission denied Users don't even see the pool with zpool status ? Can: bash-3.2$ /sbin/zpool status pool: zpace state: ONLINE status: The pool is formatted using an older on-disk format. The pool can still be used, but some features are unavailable. action: Upgrade the pool using 'zpool upgrade'. Once this is done, the pool will no longer be accessible on older software versions. scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM zpace ONLINE 0 0 0 c1d0p4ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors bash-3.2$ /sbin/zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT zpace715M 59.3G 586K /zpace zpace/DB29.5K 59.3G 29.5K /zpace/DB zpace/Download 648M 59.3G 648M /zpace/Download zpace/demo 66.2M 59.3G 66.2M /zpace/demo This looks strange: zpace delegation off default That's the default on OSX, as I created the file system on OSX On Solaris it reports delegation on bash-3.2$ /sbin/zpool get all zpace NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE zpace size 61G - zpace used 715M- zpace available60.3G - zpace capacity 1% - zpace altroot - default zpace health ONLINE - zpace guid 2692302108782490543 - zpace version 6 local zpace bootfs - default zpace delegation on default zpace autoreplace off default zpace cachefile- default zpace failmode waitdefault The default is on not off. What build of Solaris are you using ? snvx_b80 Also see this: zpace/demo mountpoint /Volumes/zpace/demodefault It was from OSX, I should note that ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 100% random writes coming out as 50/50 reads/writes
Thanks for the suggestions. I re-created the pool, set the record size to 8K, re-created the file and increased the I/O size from the application. It's nearly all writes now. 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 and small block random I/O
Hi, We're doing some benchmarking at a customer (using IOzone) and for some specific small block random tests, performance of their X4500 is very poor (~1.2 MB/s aggregate throughput for a 5+1 RAIDZ). Specifically, the test is the IOzone multithreaded throughput test of an 8GB file size and 8KB record size, with the server physmem'd to 2GB. I noticed a couple of peculiar anomalies when investigating the slow results. I am wondering if Sun has any best practices, tips for optimizing small block random I/O on ZFS, or any other documents that might explain what we're seeing and give us guidance on how to most effectively deploy ZFS in an environment with heavy small block random I/O. The first anomaly, Brendan Gregg's CacheKit Perl script fcachestat shows the segmap cache is hardly used (occasionally during the IOzone random read benchmark, while the disks are grabbing 20MB/s in aggregate, the segmap cache gets 100% hits for 1-3 attempts *every 10 seconds*--while all other samples are zero% for zero attempts. I don't know the kernel I/O path as well as I'd like, but I tried to see requests for ZFS to grab a file/offset block from disk by DTracing fbt::zfs_getpage (assuming it was the ZFS equivalent of ufs_getpage) and got no hits as well. In other words, it's as if ZFS isn't using the segmap cache. Secondly, DTrace scripts show the IOzone application is reading 8KB blocks, but by the time the physical I/O happens it's ballooned into a 26KB read operation for each disk. In other words, a single 8KB read generates 156KB of actual disk reads. We tried changing the ZFS recsize parameter from 128KB down to 8KB (recreated the ZPool and ZFS file system and changing recsize before creating the file), and that made the performance even worse-which has thrown us for a loop. I appreciate any assistance or direction you might be able to provide! Thanks! Marcel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] can't share a zfs
that doesn't work it looks like something maybe corrupt, maybe something didn't get installed properly or i have a bad disc, for some reason my share command doesn't have an -F option i'm going to get a new disc and reinstall everything thanks for the help everyone 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 share a zfs
btw, my machine doesn't have a dns name so i had to enter a phony one to get nfs/server online can that have any ill effects? 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 and small block random I/O
Start with the man page for zfs(1m), specifically, the recordsize parameter. More discussion is available on the Solaris Internals ZFS Best Practices Guide. http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide -- richard Marcel Guerin wrote: Hi, We’re doing some benchmarking at a customer (using IOzone) and for some specific small block random tests, performance of their X4500 is very poor (~1.2 MB/s aggregate throughput for a 5+1 RAIDZ). Specifically, the test is the IOzone multithreaded throughput test of an 8GB file size and 8KB record size, with the server physmem’d to 2GB. I noticed a couple of peculiar anomalies when investigating the slow results. I am wondering if Sun has any best practices, tips for optimizing small block random I/O on ZFS, or any other documents that might explain what we’re seeing and give us guidance on how to most effectively deploy ZFS in an environment with heavy small block random I/O. The first anomaly, Brendan Gregg’s CacheKit Perl script fcachestat shows the segmap cache is hardly used (occasionally during the IOzone random read benchmark, while the disks are grabbing 20MB/s in aggregate, the segmap cache gets 100% hits for 1-3 attempts **every 10 seconds**--while all other samples are zero% for zero attempts. I don’t know the kernel I/O path as well as I’d like, but I tried to see requests for ZFS to grab a file/offset block from disk by DTracing fbt::zfs_getpage (assuming it was the ZFS equivalent of ufs_getpage) and got no hits as well. In other words, it’s as if ZFS isn’t using the segmap cache. Secondly, DTrace scripts show the IOzone application is reading 8KB blocks, but by the time the physical I/O happens it’s ballooned into a 26KB read operation for each disk. In other words, a single 8KB read generates 156KB of actual disk reads. We tried changing the ZFS recsize parameter from 128KB down to 8KB (recreated the ZPool and ZFS file system and changing recsize before creating the file), and that made the performance even worse—which has thrown us for a loop. I appreciate any assistance or direction you might be able to provide! Thanks! Marcel ___ 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] five megabytes per second with Microsoft iSCSI initiator (2.06)
Hello All- I've been creating iSCSI targets on the following two boxes: - Sun Ultra 40 M2 with eight 10K SATA disks - Sun x2200 M2, with two 15K RPM SAS drives Both were running build 82 I'm creating a zfs volume, and sharing it with zfs set shareiscsi=on poolname/volume. I can access the iSCSI volume without any problems, but IO is terribly slow, as in five megabytes per second sustained transfers. I've tried creating an iSCSI target stored on a UFS filesystem, and get the same slow IO. I've tried every level of RAID available in ZFS with the same results. The client machines are Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition SP2, running Microsoft iSCSI initiator 2.06, and Windows XP SP2, running MS iSCSI initiator 2.06. I've tried moving some of the client machines to the same physical switch as the target servers, and get the same results. I've tried another switch, and get the same results. I've even physically isolated the computers from my network, and get the same results. I'm not sure where to go from here and what to try next. The network is all gigabit. I normally have the Solaris boxes in a 802.3ad LAG group, tying two physical NICs together which should give me a max of 2gb/s of bandwidth (250 megabytes per second). Of course, I've tried no LAG connections with the same results. In short, I've tried every combination of everything I know to try, except using a different iSCSI client/server software stack (well, I did try the 2.05 version of MS's iSCSI initiator client--same result). Here is what I'm seeing with performance logs on the Windows side- On any of the boxes, I see the queue length for the hard disk (iSCSI target) go from under 1 to 600+, and then back to under 1 about every four or five seconds. On the Solaris side, I'm running iostat -xtc 1 which shows me lots of IO activity on the hard drives associated with my ZFS pool, and then about three or four seconds of pause, and then lots of activity again for a second or two, and then a lull again, and the cycle repeats as long as I'm doing active sustained IO against the iSCSI target. The output of prstat doesn't show any heavy processor/memory usage on the Solaris box. I'm not sure what other monitors to run on either side to get a better picture. Any recommendations on how to proceed? Does anybody else use the Solaris iSCSI target software to export iSCSI targets to initiators running the MS iSCSI initiator? Thank you- John 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] filebench for Solaris 10?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Some of us are still using Solaris 10 since it is the version of Solaris released and supported by Sun. The 'filebench' software from SourceForge does not seem to install or work on Solaris 10. The 'pkgadd' command refuses to recognize the package, even when it is set to Solaris 2.4 mode. I've installed and run filebench (version 1.1.0) from the SourceForge packages on Solaris-10 here, both SPARC and x86_64, with no problems. Looks like I downloaded it 23-Jan-2008. Regards, Marion ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] how do I fix this situation?
Hi everybody, while trying to figure out what on earth has been going on in my u20m2 due to 6636511 u20m2 bios version 1.45.1 still can't distinguish disks on sata channel #1, I engaged in a lot of cable swapping operations for the internal sata drive cables. Somehow I've managed to end up with an allegedly corrupted zpool, which I was unable to do a zpool replace on, and now I can't import it either. Its config is 2 slices on disks c3t0d0 and c3t1d0, but the zpool config data reckons it's really using c2t1d0 instead of c3t0d0. Looking at the output from zdb -l /dev/dsk/c3t0d0s0 I can clearly see that there is a path field which is incorrect. How do I change this field to reflect reality? Is there some way I can force-import the pool and get that mapping changed? (zpool import -f soundandvision fails with invalid vdev configuration). LABEL 0 version=9 name='soundandvision' state=1 txg=2247550 pool_guid=7968359165854648625 hostid=226162178 hostname='farnarkle' top_guid=4672721547114476840 guid=9244482965678353940 vdev_tree type='mirror' id=0 guid=4672721547114476840 metaslab_array=14 metaslab_shift=30 ashift=9 asize=199968161792 is_log=0 children[0] type='disk' id=0 guid=15422701819531588989 path='/dev/dsk/c2t1d0s0' devid='id1,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a' hys_path='/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci108e,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0:a' whole_disk=0 DTL=85 children[1] type='disk' id=1 guid=9244482965678353940 path='/dev/dsk/c3t0d0s0' evid='id1,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/a' hys_path='/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci108e,[EMAIL PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0:a' whole_disk=0 DTL=84 Thankyou in advance, James C. McPherson -- Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris Sun Microsystems http://blogs.sun.com/jmcp http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com /blog ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discu ss Hi James, Out of curiosity, did you get an answer on this? thanks, max 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] how do I fix this situation?
Max Bruning wrote: Hi everybody, while trying to figure out what on earth has been going on in my u20m2 due to 6636511 u20m2 bios version 1.45.1 still can't distinguish disks on sata channel #1, I engaged in a lot of cable swapping operations for the internal sata drive cables. ... Hi James, Out of curiosity, did you get an answer on this? Hi Max, nope, didn't get an answer from the list. I ended up moving the cables back to how they were previously, then re-importing the zpool. cheers, James -- Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris Sun Microsystems http://blogs.sun.com/jmcp http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] five megabytes per second with Microsoft iSCSI initiator (2.06)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I'm creating a zfs volume, and sharing it with zfs set shareiscsi=on poolname/volume. I can access the iSCSI volume without any problems, but IO is terribly slow, as in five megabytes per second sustained transfers. I've tried creating an iSCSI target stored on a UFS filesystem, and get the same slow IO. I've tried every level of RAID available in ZFS with the same results. Apologies if you've already done so, but try testing your network (without iSCSI and storage). You can use ttcp from blastwave.org on the Solaris side, and PCATTCP on the Windows side. That should tell you if your TCP/IP stacks and network hardware are in good condition. Regards, Marion ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 'du' is not accurate on zfs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: It may not be relevant, but I've seen ZFS add weird delays to things too. I deleted a file to free up space, but when I checked no more space was reported. A second or two later the space appeared. Run the sync command before you do the du. That flushes the ARC and/or ZIL out to disk, after which you'll get accurate results. I do the same when timing how long it takes to create a file -- time the file creation plus the sync to see how long it takes to get the data to nonvolatile storage. Regards, Marion ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] filebench for Solaris 10?
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Marion Hakanson wrote: I've installed and run filebench (version 1.1.0) from the SourceForge packages on Solaris-10 here, both SPARC and x86_64, with no problems. Looks like I downloaded it 23-Jan-2008. This is what I get with the filebench-1.1.0_x86_pkg.tar.gz from SourceForge: # pkgadd -d . pkgadd: ERROR: no packages were found in /home/bfriesen/src/benchmark/filebench # ls install/ pkginfo pkgmapreloc/ My system has the latest package management patches applied. What am I missing? 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] five megabytes per second with Microsoft iSCSI initiator (2.06)
It would be useful if people here who have used iSCSI on top of ZFS could share their performance experiences. It is very easy to waste a lot of time trying to realize unrealistic expectations. Hopefully iSCSI on top of ZFS normally manages to transfer much more than 5MB/second! 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] five megabytes per second with Microsoft iSCSI initiator (2.06)
http://blogs.sun.com/constantin/entry/x4500_solaris_zfs_iscsi_perfect On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 14:44 -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: It would be useful if people here who have used iSCSI on top of ZFS could share their performance experiences. It is very easy to waste a lot of time trying to realize unrealistic expectations. Hopefully iSCSI on top of ZFS normally manages to transfer much more than 5MB/second! 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] filebench for Solaris 10?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: This is what I get with the filebench-1.1.0_x86_pkg.tar.gz from SourceForge: # pkgadd -d . pkgadd: ERROR: no packages were found in /home/bfriesen/src/benchmark/filebench # ls install/ pkginfo pkgmapreloc/ . . . Um, cd .. and pkgadd -d . again. The package is the actual directory that you unpacked. Note the instructions for unpacking confused me a bit as well. I had expected to pkgadd -d . filebench, but pkgadd is smart enough to scan the entire -d directory for packages. Regards, Marion ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 3ware support
Nice putrid spew of FUD regarding 3Ware cards. Regarding the SuperMicro 8-port SATA PCI-X card, yes, that is a good recommendation. -=dave - Original Message - From: Rob Windsor To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:39 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] 3ware support 3ware cards do not work (as previously specified). Even in linux/windows, they're pretty flaky -- if you had Solaris drivers, you'd probably shoot yourself in a month anyway. I'm using the SuperMicro aoc-sat2-mv8 at the recommendation of someone else on this list. It's a JBOD card, which is perfect for ZFS. Also, you won't be paying for RAID functionality that you're wanting to disable anyway. Rob++___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] filebench for Solaris 10?
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Marion Hakanson wrote: # pkgadd -d . pkgadd: ERROR: no packages were found in /home/bfriesen/src/benchmark/filebench # ls install/ pkginfo pkgmapreloc/ . . . Um, cd .. and pkgadd -d . again. The package is the actual directory that you unpacked. Note the instructions for unpacking confused me a bit as well. I had expected to pkgadd -d . filebench, but pkgadd is smart enough to scan the entire -d directory for packages. Very odd. That worked. Thank you very much!. It seems that filebench is unconventional in almost every possible way. Installing it based on the available documentation was an exercise in frustration. 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
