Re: [zfs-discuss] opensolaris lightweight install
The OpenSolaris "Just enough OS" (JeOS) project has been working on making stripped down images available for virtual machines as well as automated installer profiles. See: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+jeos/WebHome for the project home page. Also, a frequently updated blog on the topic is: http://blogs.sun.com/VirtualGuru/ -- 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] [osol-help] zfs destroy stalls, need to hard reboot
I know dedup is on the roadmap for the 7000 series, but I don't think it is officially supported yet, since we would have seen a note about the release of the software on the FishWorks Wiki http://wikis.sun.com/display/FishWorks/Software+Updates -- 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 pool Configuration "calculator"?
There is a calculator at Corporate Strategies: http://ctistrategy.com/resources/sun-7000-calculator/ Note that if the ctistrategy site is unavailable for some reason, you can also just download the free 7000 series virtual appliance which will run happily in VMWare or VirtualBox. -- 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 performance issues over 2.5 years.
Hi Yariv - It is hard to say without more data, but perhaps you might be a victim of "Stop looking and start ganging": http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6596237 It looks like this was fixed in S10u8, which was released last month. If you open a support ticket (or search for this bug id on the web), I think you should be able to get some DTrace scripts to determine if that bug is impacting you. -- 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 Random Read Performance
If you are using (3) 3511's, then won't it be possibly that your 3GB workload will be largely or entirely served out of RAID controller cache? Also, I had a question for your production backups (millions of small files), do you have atime=off set for the filesystems? That might be helpful. -- 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] slow ls or slow zfs
As others have mentioned, it would be easier to take a stab at this if there is some more data to look at. Have you done any ZFS tuning? If so, please provide the /etc/system, adb, zfs etc info. Can you provide zpool status output? As far as checking ls performance, just to remove name service lookups from the possibilities, lets use the '-n' option instead of '-l'. I know you mentioned it was unlikely to be a problem, but the less variables the better. Can you characterize what your ''ls -an" output looks like? Is it 100 files or 100,000? How about some sample output like: for run in 1 2 3 4 do echo run $run truss -c ls -an | wc -l echo "" echo done -- 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] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450
I don't understand your statement/questions. This wasn't a response to "ZFS versus every possible storage platform in the world". The original poster was asking about comparing ZFS versus hardware RAID on specific machines as mentioned in the title. AFAIK you don't get compression, snapshots and clones with standard hardware RAID cards. -- 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] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450
Keep in mind that if you use ZFS you get a lot of additional functionality like snapshots, compression, clones. -- 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] RE : rsync using 100% of a cp u
How are the two sides different? If you run something like 'openssl md5sum' on both sides is it much faster on one side? Does one machine have a lot more memory/ARC and allow it to skip the physical reads? Is the dataset compressed on one side? -- 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 performance degradation when backups are running
You might want to also try toggling the Nagle tcp setting to see if that helps with your workload: ndd -get /dev/tcp tcp_naglim_def (save that value, default is 4095) ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_naglim_def 1 If no (or a negative) difference, set it back to the original value ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_naglim_def 4095 (or whatever it was) -- 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 performance degradation when backups are running
Gary - Besides the network questions... What does your zpool status look like? Are you using compression on the file systems? (Was single-threaded and fixed in s10u4 or equiv patches) -- 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] zpool error: must be a block device or regular file
The zfs kernel modules handle the caching/flushing of data across all the devices in the zpools. It uses a different method for this than the "standard" virtual memory system used by traditional file systems like UFS. Try defining your NVRAM card with ZFS as a log device using the /dev/dsk/xyz path and let us know how it goes. -- 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] zpool error: must be a block device or regular file
/dev/rdsk/* devices are character based devices, not block based. In general, character based devices have to be accessed serially (and don't do buffering), versus block devices which buffer and allow random access to the data. If you use: ls -lL /dev/*dsk/c3d1p0 you should see that the /dev/dsk/c3d1p0 device is a block based device and /dev/rdsk/c3d1p0 (via the first letter of the 'ls' output). So while /dev/rdsk/xxx and /dev/dsk/xxx point to the same hardware, the access methods that are available via the two interfaces are very different. -- 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] Best practices for ZFS plaiding
If you are using 6 Thumpers via iSCSI to provide storage to your zpool and don't use either mirroring or RAIDZ/RAIDZ2 across the Thumpers, if one Thumper goes down then your storage pool is unavailable. I think you want some form of RAID at both levels. 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 write time performance question
In addition to Brendan's advice about benchmarking, it would be a good idea to use the newer Solaris release (Solaris 10 08/07), which has a lot of ZFS improvements (performance and functional). This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS usb keys
It would be really handy if whoever was responsible for the message at: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-A5 could add data about which zpool versions are supported at specific OS/patch releases. The current message doesn't help the user figure out how to accomplish their implied task, which is to import the pool on a different system. Adding the version number of the pool that couldn't be imported to the zpool import error message would be nice too. > > Shouldn't S10u3 just see the newer on-disk format > and > > report that fact, rather than complain it is > corrupt? > > Yep, I just tried it, and it refuses to "zpool > import" the newer pool, > telling me about the incompatible version. So I > guess the pool > format isn't the correct explanation for the Dick > Davies' (number9) > problem. > > > > On a S-x86 box running snv_68, ZFS version 7: > > # mkfile 256m /home/leo.nobackup/tmp/zpool_test.vdev > # zpool create test_pool > /home/leo.nobackup/tmp/zpool_test.vdev > # zpool export test_pool > > > On a S-sparc box running snv_61, ZFS version 3 > (I get the same error on S-x86, running S10U2, ZFS > version 2): > > # zpool import -d /home/leo.nobackup/tmp/ > pool: test_pool > id: 6231880247307261822 > tate: FAULTED > status: The pool is formatted using an incompatible > version. > action: The pool cannot be imported. Access the pool > on a system running newer > software, or recreate the pool from backup. > http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-A5 > config: > > test_pool > UNAVAIL newer > version > /home/leo.nobackup/tmp//zpool_test.vdev > ONLINE This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Reading a ZFS Snapshot
An example would be if you had a raw snapshot on tape. A single file or subset of files could be restored from it without needing the space to load the full snapshot into a zpool. This would be handy if you have a zpool with 500GB of space and 300GB used. If you had a snapshot that was 250GB and wanted to load it back up to restore a file, you wouldn't have sufficient space. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Reading a ZFS Snapshot
I think it would be handy if a utility could read a full zfs snapshot and restore subsets of files or directories like using something like tar -xf or ufsrestore -i. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Status Update before Reinstall?
I've only used Lori Alt's patch for b62 boot images via jumpstart (http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=28725&tstart=15) which made it an easy process with mirrored boot ZFS drives and no UFS partitions required. If you have a jumpstart server, I think that is the best way to go. -- William Hathaway http://www.williamhathaway.com This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: zfs boot image conversion kit is posted
Hi Lori, Thanks to you and your team for posting the zfs boot image kit. I was able to jumpstart a VMWare virtual machine using a Nevada b62 image patched with your conversion kit and it went very smoothly. Here is the profile that I used: # Jumpstart profile for VMWare image w/ two emulated IDE drives # ZFS boot settings based off Nevada b62 patched install image install_type initial_install cluster SUNWCreq cluster SUNWCssh package SUNWbash add filesys c0d0s1 auto swap pool bootpool free / mirror c0d0s0 c0d1s0 dataset bootpool/BE1 auto / dataset bootpool/BE1/usr auto /usr dataset bootpool/BE1/opt auto /opt dataset bootpool/BE1/var auto /var dataset bootpool/BE1/export auto /export # uname -a SunOS zfsboot 5.11 snv_62 i86pc i386 i86pc # df -k Filesystemkbytesused avail capacity Mounted on bootpool/BE1 7676928 353874 7153830 5%/ /devices 0 0 0 0%/devices /dev 0 0 0 0%/dev ctfs 0 0 0 0%/system/contract proc 0 0 0 0%/proc mnttab 0 0 0 0%/etc/mnttab swap 300032 364 299668 1%/etc/svc/volatile objfs 0 0 0 0%/system/object sharefs0 0 0 0%/etc/dfs/sharetab bootpool/BE1/usr 7676928 158180 7153830 3%/usr /usr/lib/libc/libc_hwcap1.so.1 7312010 158180 7153830 3%/lib/libc.so.1 fd 0 0 0 0%/dev/fd bootpool/BE1/var 76769289672 7153830 1%/var swap 299668 0 299668 0%/tmp swap 299692 24 299668 1%/var/run bootpool/BE1/export 7676928 18 7153830 1%/export bootpool/BE1/opt 7676928 18 7153830 1%/opt # # zpool list NAMESIZEUSED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT bootpool 7.44G511M 6.94G 6% ONLINE - # zpool status pool: bootpool state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM bootpoolONLINE 0 0 0 mirrorONLINE 0 0 0 c0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c0d1s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors -- William Hathaway http://williamhathaway.com This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Testing of UFS, VxFS and ZFS
Why are you using software-based RAID 5/RAIDZ for the tests? I didn't think this was a common setup in cases where file system performance was the primary consideration. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS improvements
There was some discussion on the "always panic for fatal pool failures" issue in April 2006, but I haven't seen if an actual RFE was generated. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2006-April/017276.html This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: simple Raid-Z question
One option is you can replace all the existing devices in a raidz vdev with larger devices, and then export/import the pool and the vdev will grow in size. I agree that you simply can't add a single device to grow a raidz vdev. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] misleading zpool state and panic -- nevada b60 x86
I'm running Nevada build 60 inside VMWare, it is a test rig with no data of value. SunOS b60 5.11 snv_60 i86pc i386 i86pc I wanted to check out the FMA handling of a serious zpool error, so I did the following: 2007-04-07.08:46:31 zpool create tank mirror c0d1 c1d1 2007-04-07.15:21:37 zpool scrub tank (inserted some errors with dd on one device to see if it showed up, which it did, but healed fine) 2007-04-07.15:22:12 zpool scrub tank 2007-04-07.15:22:46 zpool clear tank c1d1 (added a single device without any redundancy) 2007-04-07.15:28:29 zpool add -f tank /var/500m_file (then I copied data into /tank and removed the /var/500m_file, a panic resulted, which was expected) I created a new /var/500m_file and then decided to destroy the pool and start over again. This caused a panic, which I wasn't expecting. On reboot, I did a zpool -x, which shows: pool: tank state: ONLINE status: One or more devices could not be used because the label is missing or invalid. Sufficient replicas exist for the pool to continue functioning in a degraded state. action: Replace the device using 'zpool replace'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-4J scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror ONLINE 0 0 0 c0d1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1d1 ONLINE 0 0 0 /var/500m_file UNAVAIL 0 0 0 corrupted data errors: No known data errors Since there was no redundancy for the /var/500m_file vdev, I don't see how a replace will help (unless I still had the original device/file with the data intact). When I try to destroy the pool with "zpool destroy tank", I get a panic with: Apr 7 16:00:17 b60 genunix: [ID 403854 kern.notice] assertion failed: vdev_config_sync(rvd, t xg) == 0, file: ../../common/fs/zfs/spa.c, line: 2910 Apr 7 16:00:17 b60 unix: [ID 10 kern.notice] Apr 7 16:00:17 b60 genunix: [ID 353471 kern.notice] d893cd0c genunix:assfail+5a (f9e87e74, f9 e87e58,) Apr 7 16:00:17 b60 genunix: [ID 353471 kern.notice] d893cd6c zfs:spa_sync+6c3 (da89cac0, 1363 , 0) Apr 7 16:00:17 b60 genunix: [ID 353471 kern.notice] d893cdc8 zfs:txg_sync_thread+1df (d467854 0, 0) Apr 7 16:00:18 b60 genunix: [ID 353471 kern.notice] d893cdd8 unix:thread_start+8 () Apr 7 16:00:18 b60 unix: [ID 10 kern.notice] Apr 7 16:00:18 b60 genunix: [ID 672855 kern.notice] syncing file systems... My question/comment boil down to: 1) Should the pool state really be 'online' after losing a non-redundant vdev? 2) It seems like a bug if I get a panic when trying to destroy a pool (although this clearly may be related to #1). Am I hitting a known bug (or misconceptions about how the pool should function)? I will happily provide any debugging info that I can. I haven't tried a 'zpool destroy -f tank' yet since I didn't know if there was any debugging value in my current state. Thanks, William Hathaway www.williamhathaway.com This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: today panic ...
If the fix is put into Solaris 10 update 4 (as Matt expects) it should trickle into the R&S patch cluster as well. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data
Hi Matt, Interesting proposal. Has there been any consideration if free space being reported for a ZFS filesystem would take into account the copies setting? Example: zfs create mypool/nonredundant_data zfs create mypool/redundant_data df -h /mypool/nonredundant_data /mypool/redundant_data (shows same amount of free space) zfs set copies=3 mypool/redundant_data Would a new df of /mypool/redundant_data now show a different amount of free space (presumably 1/3 if different) than /mypool/nonredundant_data? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: SPEC SFS97 benchmark of ZFS,UFS,VxFS
If this is reproducible, can you force a panic so it can be analyzed? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
