[zfs-discuss] ZFS-Performance: Raid-Z vs. Raid5/6 vs. mirrored
Hi list, as this matter pops up every now and then in posts on this list I just want to clarify that the real performance of RaidZ (in its current implementation) is NOT anything that follows from raidz-style data efficient redundancy or the copy-on-write design used in ZFS. In a M-Way mirrored setup of N disks you get the write performance of the worst disk and a read performance that is the sum of all disks (for streaming and random workloads, while latency is not improved) Apart from the write performance you get very bad disk utilization from that scenario. In Raid-Z currently we have to distinguish random reads from streaming reads: - Write performance (with COW) is (N-M)*worst single disk write performance since all writes are streaming writes by design of ZFS (which is N-M-1 times faste than mirrored) - Streaming read performance is N*worst read performance of a single disk (which is identical to mirrored if all disks have the same speed) - The problem with the current implementation is that N-M disks in a vdev are currently taking part in reading a single byte from a it, which i turn results in the slowest performance of N-M disks in question. Now lets see if this really has to be this way (this implies no, doesn't it ;-) When reading small blocks of data (as opposed to streams discussed earlier) the requested data resides on a single disk and thus reading it does not require to send read commands to all disks in the vdev. Without detailed knowledge of the ZFS code, I suspect the problem is the logical block size of any ZFS operation always uses the full stripe. If true, I think this is a design error. Without that, random reads to a raid-z are almost as fast as mirrored data. The theoretical disadvantages come from disks that have different speed (probably insignificant in any real-life scenario) and the statistical probability that by chance a few particular random reads do in fact have to access the same disk drive to be fulfilled. (In a mirrored setup, ZFS can choose from all idle devices, whereas in RAID- Z it has to wait for the disk that holds the data to be ready processing its current requests). Looking more closely, this effect mostly affects latency (not performance) as random read-requests coming in should be distributed equally across all devices even bette if the queue of requests gets longer (this would however require ZFS to reorder requests for maximum performance. Since this seems to be a real issue for many ZFS users, it would be nice if someone who has more time than me to look into the code, can comment on the amount of work required to boost RaidZ read performance. Doing so would level the tradeoff between read- write- performance and disk utilization significantly. Obviously if disk space (and resulting electricity costs) do not matter compared to getting maximum read performance, you will always be best of with 3 or even more way mirrors and a very large number of vdevs in your pool. A further question that springs to mind is if copies=N is also used to improve read performance. If so, you could have some read-optimized filesystems in a pool while others use maximum storage efficiency (as for backups). Regards, ralf -- Ralf Bertling ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zpool create behaviour
Hy, I'm facing to a problem where I configure and create a zpool on my test bed. The hardware is: T-5120 with Solaris10 with latest patch and Clariion CX3 attached by 2 HBA. In this type of configuration every LUN exported by Clariion is viewed 4 times by operating system. If I configure the latest disk by using a controller the zfs create doesn't working telling me that there is a devices currently unavailable. If I'll use a different controller (but is the same LUN from the Clariion) I'll not encountered the problem and the raidz pool is created. I'm willing to use that controller for balance the I/O between HBA and storage processor. The output of zpool create is: - Not Working: zpool create -f tank raidz c2t5006016041E0222Ed3 c3t5006016141E0222Ed0 c2t5006016041E0222Ed1 c3t5006016141E0222Ed2 cannot create 'tank': one or more devices is currently unavailable - Working zpool create -f tank raidz c2t5006016041E0222Ed3 c3t5006016141E0222Ed0 c2t5006016041E0222Ed1 c2t5006016841E0222Ed2 zpool status pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t5006016041E0222Ed3 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t5006016141E0222Ed0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t5006016041E0222Ed1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t5006016841E0222Ed2 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors rmims03# - Thanks for any suggestion. Cesare The disks and format output are: -- powermt display dev=all Pseudo name=emcpower2a CLARiiON ID=CK [Storage (T-5120)] Logical device ID=YY0002D230CB033EDD11 [LUN 12] state=alive; policy=CLAROpt; priority=0; queued-IOs=0 Owner: default=SP B, current=SP A Array failover mode: 1 == Host --- - Stor - -- I/O Path - -- Stats --- ### HW PathI/O PathsInterf. ModeState Q-IOs Errors == 3074 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/SUNW,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 c2tXX6041XXd3s0 SP A0 active alive 0 0 3074 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/SUNW,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 c2tXX6841XXd3s0 SP B0 active alive 0 0 3072 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/SUNW,[EMAIL PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 c3tXX6141XXd3s0 SP A1 active alive 0 0 3072 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/SUNW,[EMAIL PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 c3tXX6941XXd3s0 SP B1 active alive 0 0 Pseudo name=emcpower0a CLARiiON ID=CK [Storage (T-5120)] Logical device ID=YY0070885B63033EDD11 [LUN 1] state=alive; policy=CLAROpt; priority=0; queued-IOs=0 Owner: default=SP A, current=SP A Array failover mode: 1 == Host --- - Stor - -- I/O Path - -- Stats --- ### HW PathI/O PathsInterf. ModeState Q-IOs Errors == 3074 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/SUNW,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 c2tXX6041XXd0s0 SP A0 active alive 0 0 3074 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/SUNW,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 c2tXX6841XXd0s0 SP B0 active alive 0 0 3072 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/SUNW,[EMAIL PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 c3tXX6141XXd0s0 SP A1 active alive 0 0 3072 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/SUNW,[EMAIL PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 c3tXX6941XXd0s0 SP B1 active alive 0 0 Pseudo name=emcpower3a CLARiiON ID=CK [Storage (T-5120)] Logical device ID=YY009419CFDA033EDD11 [LUN 21] state=alive; policy=CLAROpt; priority=0; queued-IOs=0 Owner: default=SP A, current=SP A Array failover mode: 1 == Host --- - Stor - -- I/O Path - -- Stats --- ### HW PathI/O PathsInterf. ModeState Q-IOs Errors == 3074 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/SUNW,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 c2tXX6041XXd1s0 SP A0 active alive 0 0 3074 [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/SUNW,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS-Performance: Raid-Z vs. Raid5/6 vs. mirrored
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008, Ralf Bertling wrote: Now lets see if this really has to be this way (this implies no, doesn't it ;-) When reading small blocks of data (as opposed to streams discussed earlier) the requested data resides on a single disk and thus reading it does not require to send read commands to all disks in the vdev. Without detailed knowledge of the ZFS code, I suspect the problem is the logical block size of any ZFS operation always uses the full stripe. If true, I think this is a design error. Without that, random reads to a raid-z are almost as fast as mirrored data. Keep in mind that ZFS checksums all data, the checksum is stored in a different block than the data, and that if ZFS were to checksum on the stripe segment level, a lot more checksums would need to be stored. All these extra checksums would require more data access, more checksum computations, and more stress on the free block allocator since ZFS uses copy-on-write in all cases. Perhaps the solution is to install more RAM in the system so that the stripe is fully cached and ZFS does not need to go back to disk prior to writing an update. The need to read prior to write is clearly what kills ZFS update performance. That is why using 8K blocks helps database performance. 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-Performance: Raid-Z vs. Raid5/6 vs. mirrored
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:37:34AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Perhaps the solution is to install more RAM in the system so that the stripe is fully cached and ZFS does not need to go back to disk prior to writing an update. The need to read prior to write is clearly what kills ZFS update performance. That is why using 8K blocks helps database performance. How much do slogs/cache disks help in this case? I'm thinking fast SSD or fast iRAM style devices (I really wish Gigabyte would update the iRAM to SATA 3.0 and more ram, but I keep saying that, and it keeps not happening). -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] zpool create behaviour
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Cesare [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hy, I'm facing to a problem where I configure and create a zpool on my test bed. The hardware is: T-5120 with Solaris10 with latest patch and Clariion CX3 attached by 2 HBA. In this type of configuration every LUN exported by Clariion is viewed 4 times by operating system. If I configure the latest disk by using a controller the zfs create doesn't working telling me that there is a devices currently unavailable. If I'll use a different controller (but is the same LUN from the Clariion) I'll not encountered the problem and the raidz pool is created. I'm willing to use that controller for balance the I/O between HBA and storage processor. My experience is that zfs + powerpath + clariion doesn't work. (Try a 'zpool export' followed by 'zpool import' - do you get your pool back?) For this I've had to get rid of powerpath and use mpxio instead. The problem seems to be that the clariion arrays are active/passive and zfs trips up if it tries to use one of the passive links. Using mpxio hides this and works fine. And powerpath on the (active/active) DMX-4 seems to be OK too. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] What is this, who is doing it, and how do I get you to stop?
Every time I post to this list, I get an AUTOREPLY from somebody who if you ask me is up to no good, otherwise they would set a proper From: address instead of spoofing my domain. Received: from mail01.csw-datensysteme.de ([62.153.225.98]) by wiggum.4amlunch.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-6.03 (built Mar 14 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTP id [EMAIL PROTECTED] for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:46:14 -0400 (EDT) Original-recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AUTOREPLY Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS-Performance: Raid-Z vs. Raid5/6 v... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 15:44:50 + Priority: normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: normal X-Mailer: DvISE by Tobit Software, Germany (0241.444A46454D464F4D4E50), Mime Converter 101.20 X-David-Sym: 0 X-David-Flags: 0 Message-id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7Bit I don't know who you are, and honestly I don't think I care, I'm going to just start firewalling you. I recommend everyone else on the list does the same. -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-Performance: Raid-Z vs. Raid5/6 vs. mirrored
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 15:37, Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Keep in mind that ZFS checksums all data, the checksum is stored in a different block than the data, and that if ZFS were to checksum on the stripe segment level, a lot more checksums would need to be stored. All these extra checksums would require more data access, more I think the question is more why segment in the first place?. If ZFS kept everything in recordsize-blocks that reside on one disk each (or two places, if there is mirroring going on) and made parity just another recordsized-block, one could avoid the penalty of seeking every disk for every read. The downside of this scheme would be deletes---if you actually free blocks, then the parity is useless. So you'd need to do something like keep the old useless block around and put its neighbors in the parity in a list of blocks to be re-paritied. Then when new parity has been regenerated, you can actually free the block. An advantage this would have would be changing width of raidz/z2 groups: if another disk is added, one can mark every block as needing new parity of width N+1, and let the re-parity process do its thing. This would take a while, of course, but it would add the expandability that people have been asking for. Perhaps the solution is to install more RAM in the system so that the stripe is fully cached and ZFS does not need to go back to disk prior to writing an update. I don't think the problem is that the stripe is falling out of cache, but that it costs so much to get it into memory in the first place. Will ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS-Performance: Raid-Z vs. Raid5/6 vs. mirrored
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008, Brian Hechinger wrote: On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 10:37:34AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Perhaps the solution is to install more RAM in the system so that the stripe is fully cached and ZFS does not need to go back to disk prior to writing an update. The need to read prior to write is clearly what kills ZFS update performance. That is why using 8K blocks helps database performance. How much do slogs/cache disks help in this case? I'm thinking fast SSD or fast iRAM style devices (I really wish Gigabyte would update the iRAM to SATA 3.0 and more ram, but I keep saying that, and it keeps not happening). To clarify, there are really two issues. One is with updating small parts of a disk block without synchronous commit, while the other is updating parts of a disk block with synchronous commit. Databases always want to sync their data. When synchronous write is requested, the zfs in-memory recollection of that write can not be used for other purposes until the write is reported as completed since otherwise results could be incoherent. More memory helps quite a lot in the cases where files are updated without requesting synchronization but is much less useful for the cases where the data needs to be committed to disk before proceeding. Applications which want to update ZFS blocks and go fast at the same time will take care to make sure that the I/O is aligned to the start of the ZFS block, and that the I/O size is in multiples of the ZFS block size. Testing shows that performance falls off a cliff for random I/O when the available ARC cache size is too small and the write is not properly aligned or the write is smaller than the ZFS block size. If everything is perfectly aligned then ZFS still goes quite fast since it has no need to read the underlying data first. What this means for applications is that if they own the file, it may be worthwhile to read/write full ZFS blocks and do the final block update within the application rather than force ZFS to do it. However, if a small part of the the file is read and then immediately updated (i.e. record update), ZFS does a good job of caching in that case. 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] What is this, who is doing it, and how do I get you to stop?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 06:11:21PM +0200, Volker A. Brandt wrote: Everyone who post gets this autoreply. So what do the rest of you do? Ignore it? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] These people are not spoofing your domain, they set a From: header with no @domain. Many MTAs append the local domain in this case. Maybe it's because they use a German umlaut in the From: string. That's not a valid email address either, which is still wrong. Judging from the word Irrl?ufer, someone at their site has subscribed to zfs-discuss but does not exist there any more. Then they should send back a message pointing out that the user is not longer there, not just send the whole message back. Received: from mail01.csw-datensysteme.de ([62.153.225.98]) It seems to be a German company (not too far away from me, too. :-) H, are you for hire? Maybe you could take a trip out there and deliver some clue. ;) X-Mailer: DvISE by Tobit Software, Germany (0241.444A46454D464F4D4E50), As you can see, they use a commercial mail appliance. It's probably just misconfigured. Email appliances and Exchange servers are the bane of the internet. You don't need to know how to properly setup and email server because now anyone can do it! :) I don't know who you are, and honestly I don't think I care, I'm going to just start firewalling you. I recommend everyone else on the list does the same. No need to get uptight, just tell them politely. Eventually they will figure it out. :-) If they had sent some sort of this user is no longer here message or some such I would have been less likely to get all jumpy about it. I'll redirect my misguided anger at yet another poorly managed mail server at the poor sods who admin it. -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-Performance: Raid-Z vs. Raid5/6 vs. mirrored
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008, Will Murnane wrote: Perhaps the solution is to install more RAM in the system so that the stripe is fully cached and ZFS does not need to go back to disk prior to writing an update. I don't think the problem is that the stripe is falling out of cache, but that it costs so much to get it into memory in the first place. That makes sense and is demonstrated by measurements. The following iozone Kbytes/sec throughput numbers are from a mirrored array rather than Raid-Z but it shows how sensitive ZFS becomes to block size once cache memory requirements start to exceed available memory. Since throughput is a function of record size and latency this presentation tends to amplify the situation. random randombkwd record stride reclen write rewritereadrereadread writeread rewriteread 4 367953 143777 496378 48818662422521 836293 786866 30269 8 249827 166847 621371 489279 125204130 929394 1508139 41568 16 273266 160537 555350 513444 248956991 928915 2473915 32016 32 293463 168727 595128 678359 48666 15831 818962 3708512 43561 64 284213 168007 694747 514942 99565 95703 705144 3774777 270612 128 273797 271583 1260035 1366050 187042 512312 1175683 4616660 861089 256 273265 272916 1259814 1394034 250743 480186 219927 4708927 587602 512 260630 262145 713797 743914 313429 535920 343209 2603492 583120 Clearly random-read and random-write suffers the most. Since sub-block updates cause ZFS to have to read the existing block, the random-write performance becomes bottlenecked by the random-read performance. When the write is aligned and a multiple of the ZFS block size, then ZFS does not care what is already on disk and writes very quickly. Notice that in the above results, random write became much faster than sequential write. 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] What is this, who is doing it, and how do I get you to stop?
Everyone who post gets this autoreply. So what do the rest of you do? Ignore it? I for one do ignore it. :-) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] These people are not spoofing your domain, they set a From: header with no @domain. Many MTAs append the local domain in this case. Maybe it's because they use a German umlaut in the From: string. That's not a valid email address either, which is still wrong. You're right, it's wrong. But I didn't say it was right, right? Judging from the word Irrl?ufer, someone at their site has subscribed to zfs-discuss but does not exist there any more. Then they should send back a message pointing out that the user is not longer there, not just send the whole message back. Preaching to the choir... Received: from mail01.csw-datensysteme.de ([62.153.225.98]) It seems to be a German company (not too far away from me, too. :-) H, are you for hire? Maybe you could take a trip out there and deliver some clue. ;) I am, and I could, but my clue-bat's on loan to a Windows guy. :-))) X-Mailer: DvISE by Tobit Software, Germany (0241.444A46454D464F4D4E50), As you can see, they use a commercial mail appliance. It's probably just misconfigured. Email appliances and Exchange servers are the bane of the internet. Amen! If they had sent some sort of this user is no longer here message or some such I would have been less likely to get all jumpy about it. Certainly! See above, look for choir. I'll redirect my misguided anger at yet another poorly managed mail server at the poor sods who admin it. Fair enough. Regards -- Volker -- Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris Brandt Brandt Computer GmbH WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/ Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513 Schuhgröße: 45 Geschäftsführer: Rainer J. H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool i/o error
On 21 June, 2008 - Victor Pajor sent me these 0,9K bytes:
Another thing
config:
zfs FAULTED corrupted data
raidz1ONLINE
c1t1d0 ONLINE
c7t0d0 UNAVAIL corrupted data
c7t1d0 UNAVAIL corrupted data
c70d0 c71d0 don't exist, it's normal. they are c2t0d0 c2t1d0
AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS:
0. c1t0d0 DEFAULT cyl 4424 alt 2 hd 255 sec 63
/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci1022,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/pci10f1,[EMAIL
PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0
1. c1t1d0 SEAGATE-ST336754LW-0005-34.18GB
/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci1022,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/pci10f1,[EMAIL
PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0
2. c2t0d0 SEAGATE-ST336753LW-0005-34.18GB
/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci1022,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/pci10f1,[EMAIL
PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0
3. c2t1d0 SEAGATE-ST336753LW-HPS2-33.92GB
/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci1022,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/pci10f1,[EMAIL
PROTECTED],1/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0
zpool export zfs;zpool import zfs
/Tomas
--
Tomas Ögren, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {cs,acc}.umu.se
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] getting inodeno for zfs from vnode in vfs kernel
If you really need the inode number, you should use the semi-public interface to retrieve it and call VOP_GETATTR. This is what the rest of the kernel does when it needs attributes of a vnode. See for example http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/syscall/stat.c 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] mv between ZFSs on same zpool
Yaniv Aknin wrote:
Hi,
Obviously, moving ('renaming') files between ZFSs on the same zpools is just
like a move between any other two filesystems, requiring full copy of the
data and deletion of the old file.
I was wondering if there is (and why there isn't) an optimization inside ZFS,
thus that copy between ZFSs on the same zpool would be instantaneous or
near-so. After all, no blocks /really/ need to be copied, it's more about ZFS
finding out that it's a move within the same zpool and inode modifications at
the source / target.
Thoughts?
We beat this one into the dust last December. See thread:
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2007-December/044975.html
-- richard
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re-2: What is this, who is doing it, and how do I get you to stop?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..sorry, there was a misconfiguration in our email-system. I've fixed it in this moment... We apologize for any problems you had Andreas Gaida Wow, that was fast! And on a Sunday evening, too... So, everything is fixed, and we are all happy now :-) Regards -- Volker -- Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris Brandt Brandt Computer GmbH WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/ Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513 Schuhgröße: 45 Geschäftsführer: Rainer J. H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] CIFS HA service with solaris 10 and SC 3.2
Hello all, i would like to continue with this topic, and after doing some research about the topic, i have some (many) doubts, and maybe we could use this thread to give some responses to me and other users that can have the same questions... First, sorry to CC to many forums, but i think is a relevant topic to all of them, so... Second, would be nice to clear the understanding on some topics... 1) What the difference between the smb server in solaris/opensolaris, and the new project CIFS? 2) I think samba.org has an implementation of CIFS protocol, to make a unix-like operating system to be a SMB/CIFS server. Why don't use that? license problems? the smbserver that is already on solaris/opensolaris is not a samba.org implementation? 3) One of the goals to the CIFS Server project on OpenSolaris, is to support OpenSolaris as a storage operating system... we can not do it with samba.org implementation, or smbserver implementation that is already there? 4) And the last one: ZFS has smb/cifs share/on/off capabilities, what is the relation of that with all of that?? 5) Ok, there is another question... there is a new projetc (data migration manager/dmm), that is intend to migrate NFS(GNU/Linux) services, and CIFS(MS/Windows) services to Solaris/Opensolaris and ZFS. That project is on storage community i think...but, how can we create a migration plan if we can not handle the services yet? or can? Ok, i'm very confuse, but is not just my fault, i think is a little complicated all this efforts without a glue, don't you agree? And in the top of all, is a need to have an agent to implement HA services on it... i want implement a SMB/CIFS server on solaris/opensolaris, and don't know if we have the solution in ou community or not, and if there is an agent to provide HA or we need to create a project to implement that... See, i need help :-) Ok, that's all! Leal. 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] CIFS HA service with solaris 10 and SC 3.2
Samba cifs has been in opensolaris from day1. No, it cannot be used to meet sun's end goal which is cifs INTEGRATION with the core kernel. Sun cifs supports windows acl's from the kernel up. Samba does not. On 6/22/08, Marcelo Leal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all, i would like to continue with this topic, and after doing some research about the topic, i have some (many) doubts, and maybe we could use this thread to give some responses to me and other users that can have the same questions... First, sorry to CC to many forums, but i think is a relevant topic to all of them, so... Second, would be nice to clear the understanding on some topics... 1) What the difference between the smb server in solaris/opensolaris, and the new project CIFS? 2) I think samba.org has an implementation of CIFS protocol, to make a unix-like operating system to be a SMB/CIFS server. Why don't use that? license problems? the smbserver that is already on solaris/opensolaris is not a samba.org implementation? 3) One of the goals to the CIFS Server project on OpenSolaris, is to support OpenSolaris as a storage operating system... we can not do it with samba.org implementation, or smbserver implementation that is already there? 4) And the last one: ZFS has smb/cifs share/on/off capabilities, what is the relation of that with all of that?? 5) Ok, there is another question... there is a new projetc (data migration manager/dmm), that is intend to migrate NFS(GNU/Linux) services, and CIFS(MS/Windows) services to Solaris/Opensolaris and ZFS. That project is on storage community i think...but, how can we create a migration plan if we can not handle the services yet? or can? Ok, i'm very confuse, but is not just my fault, i think is a little complicated all this efforts without a glue, don't you agree? And in the top of all, is a need to have an agent to implement HA services on it... i want implement a SMB/CIFS server on solaris/opensolaris, and don't know if we have the solution in ou community or not, and if there is an agent to provide HA or we need to create a project to implement that... See, i need help :-) Ok, that's all! Leal. 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] mv between ZFSs on same zpool
Thanks for the reference. I read that thread to the end, and saw there are some complex considerations regarding changing st_dev on an open file, but no decision. Despite this complexity, I think the situation is quite brain damanged - I'm moving large files between ZFSs all the time, otherwise I can't separate the tree as I'd like to, and it's fairly annoying to think these blocks are basically not doing anything at 50mb/s. I think even a hack will do for a start (do I hear 'zmv'). Thoughts? Objections? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] raid card vs zfs
digg linked to an article related to the apple port of ZFS (http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/print_1125?c=uscs=19l=ens=dhss). I dont have a mac but was interested in ZFS. The article says that ZFS eliminates the need for a RAID card and is faster because the striping is running on the main cpu rather than an old chipset on a card. My question is, is this true? Can I install opensolaris with zfs and stripe and mirror a bunch of sata disc for a home NAS server? I sure would like to do that but the cost of the good raid cards has put me off; maybe this is the solution. 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] raid card vs zfs
kevin williams writes: digg linked to an article related to the apple port of ZFS (http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/print_1125?c=uscs=19l=ens=dhss). I dont have a mac but was interested in ZFS. The article says that ZFS eliminates the need for a RAID card and is faster because the striping is running on the main cpu rather than an old chipset on a card. My question is, is this true? Can I install opensolaris with zfs and stripe and mirror a bunch of sata disc for a home NAS server? I sure would like to do that but the cost of the good raid cards has put me off; maybe this is the solution. The cache may give RAID cards an edge, but ZFS gives near platter speeds for its various configurations. The Thumper is a perfect example of a ZFS appliance. So yes, you can use OpenSolaris for a home NAS server. Ian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] raid card vs zfs
kevin williams wrote: digg linked to an article related to the apple port of ZFS (http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/print_1125?c=uscs=19l=ens=dhss). I dont have a mac but was interested in ZFS. The article says that ZFS eliminates the need for a RAID card and is faster because the striping is running on the main cpu rather than an old chipset on a card. My question is, is this true? Can I install opensolaris with zfs and stripe and mirror a bunch of sata disc for a home NAS server? I sure would like to do that but the cost of the good raid cards has put me off; maybe this is the solution. Hi Kevin, Personally, I'd argue that if you've got a RAID card or array to use, you should take advantage of it _in conjunction_ with using ZFS. If you don't have a RAID card or array, then still use ZFS so you get the speed and data integrity benefits. There are several threads on the zfs-discuss mailing list which talk about the configs that people have used to setup home NAS servers. The searchable pages are at http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=80 You might want to have a look at these two wikidocs: http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Configuration_Guide cheers, 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-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] raid card vs zfs
It is indeed true and yoi can. On 6/22/08, kevin williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: digg linked to an article related to the apple port of ZFS (http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/print_1125?c=uscs=19l=ens=dhss). I dont have a mac but was interested in ZFS. The article says that ZFS eliminates the need for a RAID card and is faster because the striping is running on the main cpu rather than an old chipset on a card. My question is, is this true? Can I install opensolaris with zfs and stripe and mirror a bunch of sata disc for a home NAS server? I sure would like to do that but the cost of the good raid cards has put me off; maybe this is the solution. 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] raid card vs zfs
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:13:49AM +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The cache may give RAID cards an edge, but ZFS gives near platter speeds for its various configurations. The Thumper is a perfect example of a ZFS appliance. I get very acceptable performance out of my Sun Ultra-80 with 4x 450Mhz US-II CPUs and 4GB RAM. I can't wait to upgrade to something a tad faster. :) So yes, you can use OpenSolaris for a home NAS server. Absolutely, yes. And you don't need to newest, shiniest hardware to do it either. If you are building some super media streaming monster box, then, well, sure, you do. If you are building your average home NAS box though, it really isn't nessesary to get the latest and greatest hardware. That being said, the best thing you can do for a machine running ZFS is to give it as much ram as it is able to hold. -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] CIFS HA service with solaris 10 and SC 3.2
Marcelo Leal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello all, [..] 1) What the difference between the smb server in solaris/opensolaris, and the new project CIFS? What you refer to as the smb server in solaris/opensolaris is in fact Samba, which sits on top of a plain unix system. This has limitations in the areas of user accounts and ACLs, among others. The new CIFS project provides a CIFS server that's integrated from the ground up, including the filesystem itself. 2) I think samba.org has an implementation of CIFS protocol, to make a unix-like operating system to be a SMB/CIFS server. Why don't use that? license problems? the smbserver that is already on solaris/opensolaris is not a samba.org implementation? See above 3) One of the goals to the CIFS Server project on OpenSolaris, is to support OpenSolaris as a storage operating system... we can not do it with samba.org implementation, or smbserver implementation that is already there? See above 4) And the last one: ZFS has smb/cifs share/on/off capabilities, what is the relation of that with all of that?? Those properties are part of the administrative interface for the new in-kernel CIFS server. 5) Ok, there is another question... there is a new projetc (data migration manager/dmm), that is intend to migrate NFS(GNU/Linux) services, and CIFS(MS/Windows) services to Solaris/Opensolaris and ZFS. That project is on storage community i think...but, how can we create a migration plan if we can not handle the services yet? or can? I'm not sure what you mean by we can not handle the services yet. As mentioned above, OpenSolaris now has 2 separate ways to provide SMB/CIFS services, and has had NFS support since... oh, about when Sun invented NFS, I'd guess. :) And it's way more solid than Linux's Ok, i'm very confuse, but is not just my fault, i think is a little complicated all this efforts without a glue, don't you agree? And in the top of all, is a need to have an agent to implement HA services on it... i want implement a SMB/CIFS server on solaris/opensolaris, and don't know if we have the solution in ou community or not, and if there is an agent to provide HA or we need to create a project to implement that... Have you seen this? http://opensolaris.org/os/community/ha-clusters/ohac/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SMC Webconsole 3.1 and ZFS Administration 1.0 - stacktraces in snv_b89
Just a note: Setting compression to gzip on a zpool breaks the GUI with a similar type of error - Application Error com.iplanet.jato.NavigationException: Exception encountered during forward Root cause = [java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No enum const class com.sun.zfs.common.model.CompressionProperty$Compression.gzip] With compression set to on/lzjb, this error does not occur and the GUI works fine. Cheers, JP This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
