Re: [zfs-discuss] stupid ZFS question - floating point operations
If I remember correctly Solaris like most other operating system does not save or restore the floating point registers when context switching from User to Kernel so doing any floating point ops in the kernel would corrupt user floating point state. This means ZFS cannot be doing any floating point ops in the kernel context. Others wiser than I may be able to asert this with more certainty -Angelo On Dec 22, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Jerry Kemp wrote: I have a coworker, who's primary expertise is in another flavor of Unix. This coworker lists floating point operations as one of ZFS detriments. I's not really sure what he means specifically, or where he got this reference from. In an effort to refute what I believe is an error or misunderstanding on his part, I have spent time on Yahoo, Google, the ZFS section of OpenSolaris.org, etc. I really haven't turned up much of anything that would prove or disprove his comments. The one thing I haven't done is to go through the ZFS source code, but its been years since I have done any serious programming. If someone from Oracle, or anyone on this mailing list could point me towards any documentation, or give me a definitive word, I would sure appreciate it. If there were floating point operations going on within ZFS, at this point I am uncertain as to what they would be. TIA for any comments, Jerry ___ 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] How to put solaris 11 into continous reboot
Why not write an SMF service that reboots the system? Make it dependent on all the services that you need to start before the reboot. This would be equivalent to creating an rc-script. -Angelo On Dec 16, 2010, at 12:07 AM, rachana wrote: Hi, Can anybody tell me how to put my solaris-11 vm into continous reboot, i need to perform boot halt 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS storage server hardware
Also if you are a startup, there are some ridiculously sweet deals on Sun hardware through the Sun Startup Essentials program. http://sun.com/startups This way you do not need to worry about compatibility and you get all the Enterprise RAS features at a pretty low price point. -Angelo On Nov 17, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Bruno Sousa wrote: Hi, I currently have a 1U server (Sun X2200) with 2 LSI HBA attached to a Supermicro JBOD chassis each one with 24 disks , SATA 1TB, and so far so good.. So i have a 48 TB raw capacity, with a mirror configuration for NFS usage (Xen VMs) and i feel that for the price i paid i have a very nice system. Bruno Ian Allison wrote: Hi, I know (from the zfs-discuss archives and other places [1,2,3,4]) that a lot of people are looking to use zfs as a storage server in the 10-100TB range. I'm in the same boat, but I've found that hardware choice is the biggest issue. I'm struggling to find something which will work nicely under solaris and which meets my expectations in terms of hardware. Because of the compatibility issues, I though I should ask here to see what solutions people have already found. I'm learning as I go here, but as far as I've been able to determine, the basic choices for attaching drives seem to be 1) SATA Port multipliers 2) SAS Multilane Enclosures 3) SAS Expanders In option 1, the controller can only talk to one device at a time, in option 2 each miniSAS connector can talk to 4 drives at a time but in option 3 the expander can allow for communication with up to 128 drives. I'm thinking about having ~8-16 drives on each controller (PCI-e card) so I think I want option 3. Additionally, because I might get greedier in the future and decide to add more drives on each controller I think option 3 is the best way to go. I can have a motherboard with a lot of PCIe slots and have one controller card for each expander. Cases like the Supermicro 846E1-R900B have 24 hot swap bays accessible via a single (4u) LSI SASX36 SAS expander chip, but I'm worried about controller death and having the backplane as a single point of failure. I guess, ideally, I'd like a 4u enclosure with 2x2u SAS expanders. If I wanted hardware redundancy, I could then use mirrored vdevs with one side of each mirror on one controller/expander pair and the other side on a separate pair. This would allow me to survive controller or expander death as well hard drive failure. Replace motherboard: ~500 Replace backplane: ~500 Replace controller: ~300 Replace disk (SATA): ~100 Does anyone have any example systems they have built or any thoughts on what I could do differently? Best regards, Ian. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg27234.html [2] http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17543496 [3] http://www.stringliterals.com/?p=53 [4] http://www.mail-archive.com/zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org/msg22761.html ___ 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 mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Why is Solaris 10 ZFS performance so terrible?
Just FYI. I ran a slightly different version of the test. I used SSD (for log cache)! 3 x 32GB SSDs. 2 mirrored for log and one for cache. The systems is a 4150 with 12 GB of RAM. Here are the results $ pfexec ./zfs-cache-test.ksh sdpool System Configuration: System architecture: i386 System release level: 5.11 snv_111b CPU ISA list: amd64 pentium_pro+mmx pentium_pro pentium+mmx pentium i486 i386 i86 Pool configuration: pool: sdpool state: ONLINE scrub: resilver completed after 0h0m with 0 errors on Fri Jul 10 11:33:01 2009 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM sdpool ONLINE 0 0 0 mirrorONLINE 0 0 0 c7t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 logsONLINE 0 0 0 mirrorONLINE 0 0 0 c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c8t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 cache c8t4d0ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors zfs unmount sdpool/zfscachetest zfs mount sdpool/zfscachetest Doing initial (unmount/mount) 'cpio -C 131072 -o /dev/null' 48000256 blocks real3m27.06s user0m2.05s sys 0m30.14s Doing second 'cpio -C 131072 -o /dev/null' 48000256 blocks real2m47.32s user0m2.09s sys 0m32.32s Feel free to clean up with 'zfs destroy sdpool/zfscachetest'. -Angelo On Jul 14, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Jorgen Lundman wrote: I have no idea. I downloaded the script from Bob without modifications and ran it specifying only the name of our pool. Should I have changed something to run the test? If your system has quite a lot of memory, the number of files should be increased to at least match the amount of memory. We have two kinds of x4500/x4540, those with Sol 10 10/08, and 2 running svn117 for ZFS quotas. Worth trying on both? It is useful to test as much as possible in order to fully understand the situation. Since results often get posted without system details, the script is updated to dump some system info and the pool configuration. Refresh from http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/zfs-discuss/zfs-cache-test.ksh Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, 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] Re: Thumper Origins Q
On 24 Jan 2007, at 13:04, Bryan Cantrill wrote: On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:46:11AM -0800, Moazam Raja wrote: Well, he did say fairly cheap. the ST 3511 is about $18.5k. That's about the same price for the low-end NetApp FAS250 unit. Note that the 3511 is being replaced with the 6140: http://www.sun.com/storagetek/disk_systems/midrange/6140/ Also, don't read too much into the prices you see on the website -- that's the list price, and doesn't reflect any discounting. If you're interested in what it _actually_ costs, you should talk to a Sun rep or one of our channel partners to get a quote. (And lest anyone attack the messenger: I'm not defending this system of getting an accurate price, I'm just describing it.) If your company can qualify as a start-up (4 year old or less with less than 150 employees) you may want to look at the Sun Startup essentials program. It provides Sun hardware at big discounts for startups. http://www.sun.com/emrkt/startupessentials/ For an idea on the levels of discounts see http://kalsey.com/2006/11/sun_startup_essentials_pricing/ -Angelo - Bryan --- --- Bryan Cantrill, Solaris Kernel Development. http://blogs.sun.com/bmc ___ 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
