Re: [developer] DRAID impressions

ne 3d+2p, plus one spare (6x 14TB > drives). > > The disappointing thing is the lop-sided allocation, > such that draid2:3d:6c:1s-1 has 50.6T allocated and 3.96T free (i.e. 92% > allocated), whereas raid2:3d:16c:1s-0 only has 128T allocated, and 63.1T > free (i.e. about 50% allocate

Re: [developer] DRAID impressions

Hi Phil, long time, no see. comments embedded below On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 3:35 AM Phil Harman wrote: > I have a number of "ZFS backup" servers (about 1PB split between four > machines). > > Some of them have 16x 18TB drives, but a couple have a mix of 12TB and > 14TB drives (because that's

Re: [developer] What vdev is picked as leading in mirror resilver proces?

In looking at your pastebin... Scenario 1 deliberately causes data loss as a result of the forced import [*]. No surprise there. Scenario 2 also works as designed because you're forcing the data loss on vda Scenario 2 again causes data loss because of the forced import. Again, no surprise there.

Re: [developer] What vdev is picked as leading in mirror resilver proces?

First, resilvering is done at the dataset and snapshot layer (DSL) and not the vdev layer. Each txg commit has a monotonically increasing counter. So the dataset knows what data is written when. The resilver begins temporally at the oldest common time (as determined by the txg commit in the vdev's

Re: [developer] ZFS Guide links on Wikipedia are broken

We took a look at those docs about a year or two ago. Many are very outdated, even as they relate to Solaris. It isn’t clear to me if they are a good starting point for newer docs. Any other opinions? -- richard > On Jul 21, 2020, at 7:58 PM, Oskar Sharipov wrote: > > Hello ZFS devs, >

Re: [developer] ZFS atomics, 64-bit on 32-bit platforms

> On Oct 11, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > >> On 10/11/2019 4:32:11 PM, Richard Elling >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Oct 11, 2019, at 2:50 PM, Garrett D'Amore >> <mailto:garr...@damore.org>> wrote: >>

Re: [developer] ZFS atomics, 64-bit on 32-bit platforms

on of > other objects like that normally falls outside the scope of a compiler > builtin (modulo bringing in a separate runtime object file, which can work > for user programs but generally not for kernels.) >> On 10/11/2019 11:38:57 AM, Richard Elling >> wrote: >> &g

Re: [developer] ZFS atomics, 64-bit on 32-bit platforms

(which isn't really builtin at all) generally can't be used in > operating system kernels -- e.g. with --freestanding.) >> On 10/9/2019 11:26:40 AM, Richard Elling >> wrote: >> >> If it is possible to specify a compiler version, it might be easier to use >> the

Re: [developer] ZFS atomics, 64-bit on 32-bit platforms

If it is possible to specify a compiler version, it might be easier to use the compiler builtin atomics. Just sayin' -- richard -- openzfs: openzfs-developer Permalink:

Re: [developer] ZFS atomics, 64-bit on 32-bit platforms

isn't this addressed by the compiler builtins for atomics? -- richard > On Oct 3, 2019, at 10:38 AM, Matthew Ahrens wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:51 AM Andriy Gapon > wrote: > > This is a work in progress report for my work on safer use of atomics in ZFS >

Re: [developer] Pathway to better DDT, and value-for-effort assessment of mitigations in the meantime.

sing bloom filters or other fast-lookup techniques. But as Garrett points out, the real wins are hard to come by. Meanwhile, PRs are welcome. -- richard > > Hence I think the question is valid, and remains valid both before allocation > classes and after them, and might be worth consider

Re: [developer] Pathway to better DDT, and value-for-effort assessment of mitigations in the meantime.

Yes, from the ZoL zpool man page: A device dedicated solely for deduplication tables. -- richard > On Jul 7, 2019, at 5:41 AM, Stilez wrote: > > "Dedup special class"? > >> On 6 July 2019 16:24:27 Richard Elling >> wrote: >> >>

Re: [developer] Pathway to better DDT, and value-for-effort assessment of mitigations in the meantime.

> On Jul 5, 2019, at 9:11 PM, Stilez wrote: > > I'm one of many end-users with highly dedupable pools held back by DDT and > spacemap RW inefficiencies. There's been discussion and presentations - Matt > Ahrens' talk at BSDCan 2016 ("Dedup doesn't have to suck") was especially > useful, and

Re: [developer] Re: Using many zpools

> On Jul 2, 2019, at 5:48 AM, nagy.att...@gmail.com wrote: > > Glad to hear that! :) > I'll try to be more verbose then. > For example I have a machine with 44*4T SATA disks. Each of these disks have > a zpool on them, so I have 44 zpools on the machine (with one zfs on each > zpool). > I put

Re: [developer] raidz overhead with ashift=12

> On Jun 7, 2019, at 12:15 PM, Mike Gerdts wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:03 PM Matthew Ahrens > wrote: > On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 10:56 PM Mike Gerdts > wrote: > I'm motivated to make zfs set refreservation=auto do the right

Re: [developer] raidz overhead with ashift=12

> On Jun 6, 2019, at 10:54 PM, Mike Gerdts wrote: > > I'm motivated to make zfs set refreservation=auto do the right thing in the > face of raidz and 4k physical blocks, but have data points that provide > inconsistent data. Experimentation shows raidz2 parity overhead that matches > my

[developer] draid workshop agenda: 3-May-2019

Here is a link to the draid workshop agenda. Comments are welcome, especially if you cannot attend. Pass along to interested folks. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT5zc4ovQcxQpvcXHvvCW_vHPQGcIWHj60RwviSeFfhtUpTpLBzIxJX7dOpgW6Kt-H1h3IqE7h1lTXX/pub

[developer] draid workshop May 3, 2019

We're organizing a workshop for ZFS developer and users who are specifically interested in the draid project. The goal is to update status and detail the work remaining to get draid ready for the larger ZFS community. Date: 3-May-2019, 9AM until ... Location: Delphix office, San Francisco, CA,

Re: [developer] Proposal: Platform-specific ZFS properties

> On Feb 25, 2019, at 9:53 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > I suspect having the platform “resolve” which property to use is going to be > problematic at the very best. The semantics are platform specific, and to > make matters worse, I suspect that even on some platforms, you will find >

Re: [developer] not attachable and importable device

> On Jan 26, 2019, at 1:23 PM, za.fus...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, > > this is more a question of interest and no loss of data is connected. Hence > skip if you don't have time or fun ;) > > > I played around with zfs in virtualbox to learn. I used 4 virtual disks: > zfsD1, zfsD2, zfsD3 &

Re: [developer] OpenZFS feature flag at zpool create proposal

People don't read man pages, so they won't read about this option or any of the other options. For those people who do read man pages, we can simply document the appropriate flags and their shortcut aliases. But... people don't read man pages and once the pool is created, it is too late to go

Re: [developer] Userland ZFS?

> On Oct 1, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Chuck Tuffli wrote: > > The OpenZFS Projects page lists some bullet points for a Userland ZFS > implementation. I have a ZFS related experiment that would benefit from > running in user-space and was wondering if this is done, a work-in-progress, > etc.. Are

Re: [developer] Is L2ARC read process single-threaded?

> On Aug 30, 2018, at 7:15 AM, w.kruzel via openzfs-developer > wrote: > > The flamegraphs are here: > https://drive.google.com/open?id=1vM-5wy4s-QhV2D3hBVh5bPgaqPqEKsMa > > > There are 11 of them. > Files out.svg to

Re: [developer] Potential bug recently introduced in arc_adjust() that leads to unintended pressure on MFU eventually leading to dramatic reduction in its size

Hi Mark, yes, this is the change I've tested on ZoL. It is a trivial, low-risk change that is needed to restore the previous behaviour. -- richard > On Aug 30, 2018, at 7:40 AM, Mark Johnston wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 09:55:27AM +0300, Paul wrote: >> 30 August 2018, 00:22:14, by

Re: [developer] Re: Potential bug recently introduced in arc_adjust() that leads to unintended pressure on MFU eventually leading to dramatic reduction in its size

Thanks for passing this along, Mark. Comments embedded > On Aug 29, 2018, at 2:22 PM, Mark Johnston wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:42:33PM +0300, Paul wrote: >> Hello team, >> >> >> It seems like a commit on Mar 23 introduced a bug: if during execution of >> arc_adjust() >> target is

Re: [developer] Re: Is L2ARC read process single-threaded?

> On Aug 29, 2018, at 11:49 AM, w.kruzel via openzfs-developer > wrote: > > I think yes, there is sufficient demand to have I/O at such level. What do > you mean by higher rate for the same workload? If types of devices - I have > tested two Intel nvme disks and one of them had a

Re: [developer] Re: Is L2ARC read process single-threaded?

L2ARC uses the ZIO pipeline, just like everything else. Very parallel. But if your workload isn’t parallel, then... -- richard > On Aug 23, 2018, at 7:03 PM, Jason Matthews wrote: > > > In 1989 a 4mb stick of ram was like $800. RAM is cheap despite price fixing. > > Having recently

Re: [developer] Re: Is L2ARC read process single-threaded?

> On Aug 22, 2018, at 11:06 AM, w.kruzel via openzfs-developer > wrote: > > I would really like to know if the L2ARC read process single-threaded. It is not single threaded. -- richard > Also how can we make it multi threaded and is it possible? > > Thanks, > Wojciech > openzfs

Re: [developer] re-adding a drive to a pool causes resilver to start over?

> On Jul 9, 2018, at 2:39 PM, Ken Merry wrote: > > Hi ZFS folks, > > We (Spectra Logic) have seen some odd behavior with resilvers in RAIDZ3 pools. > > The codebase in question is FreeBSD stable/11 from July 2017, at > approximately FreeBSD SVN version 321310. > > We have customer systems

Re: [developer] zfs tests design/issues

> On Jun 26, 2018, at 3:49 AM, Josh Paetzel wrote: > On Jun 26, 2018, at 4:03 AM, Igor Kozhukhov > wrote: > >> personally to me, KSH is wrong with result - because 64bit application >> should to use 64bit intager as others applications. >> BASH and ZSH are agreed with

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9466 add JSON output support to channel programs (#619)

richardelling commented on this pull request. > @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +#!/bin/ksh -p +# +# CDDL HEADER START +# +# The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the +# Common Development and Distribution License (the "License"). +# You may not use this file except in compliance with the

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9337 zfs get all is slow due to uncached metadata (#599)

In ZoL there is a dbuf_stats kstat that is the appropriate place for these. It will be natural to extend for the ZoL port. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [developer] Input on refreservation=auto

> On Mar 19, 2018, at 7:40 AM, Mike Gerdts <mike.ger...@joyent.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 5:38 PM, Richard Elling > <richard.ell...@richardelling.com <mailto:richard.ell...@richardelling.com>> > wrote: >> On Mar 15, 2018, at 9:

Re: [developer] Input on refreservation=auto

> On Mar 15, 2018, at 9:48 PM, Mike Gerdts <mike.ger...@joyent.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Richard Elling > <richard.ell...@richardelling.com <mailto:richard.ell...@richardelling.com>> > wrote: > > >> On Mar 15, 2018, at

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9194 mechanism to override ashift at pool creation time (#570)

richardelling commented on this pull request. > @@ -1431,6 +1433,7 @@ vdev_open(vdev_t *vd) vd->vdev_asize = asize; vd->vdev_max_asize = max_asize; vd->vdev_ashift = MAX(ashift, vd->vdev_ashift); + vd->vdev_ashift =

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] nuke spa_dbgmsg (#580)

richardelling commented on this pull request. > @@ -55,11 +55,10 @@ extern boolean_t zfs_free_leak_on_eio; #defineZFS_DEBUG_DNODE_VERIFY (1 << 2) #defineZFS_DEBUG_SNAPNAMES (1 << 3) #defineZFS_DEBUG_MODIFY(1 << 4) -#define

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] DLPX-49012 nuke spa_dbgmsg (#580)

richardelling commented on this pull request. > @@ -55,11 +55,10 @@ extern boolean_t zfs_free_leak_on_eio; #defineZFS_DEBUG_DNODE_VERIFY (1 << 2) #defineZFS_DEBUG_SNAPNAMES (1 << 3) #defineZFS_DEBUG_MODIFY(1 << 4) -#define

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] DLPX-49012 nuke spa_dbgmsg (#580)

richardelling commented on this pull request. > @@ -55,11 +55,10 @@ extern boolean_t zfs_free_leak_on_eio; #defineZFS_DEBUG_DNODE_VERIFY (1 << 2) #defineZFS_DEBUG_SNAPNAMES (1 << 3) #defineZFS_DEBUG_MODIFY(1 << 4) -#define

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 9194 mechanism to override ashift at pool creation time (#570)

richardelling commented on this pull request. > @@ -1431,6 +1433,7 @@ vdev_open(vdev_t *vd) vd->vdev_asize = asize; vd->vdev_max_asize = max_asize; vd->vdev_ashift = MAX(ashift, vd->vdev_ashift); + vd->vdev_ashift =

Re: [developer] implement soft-hba property

is tricky because the function boundaries aren't always where you need them to be. For AoE in particular, you want to move towards faster timeouts and more retries before failing the I/O. -- richard > > - Garrett > > On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 8:11 AM Richard Elling > <rich

Re: [developer] implement soft-hba property

> On Feb 3, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Igor Kozhukhov wrote: > > Hi All, > > i’d like to propose implenetation for soft-hba property for scsi layer with > timing updates. > > Problem: we have hw hba like LSI, where we are using direct connetion of > drives to HBA with low latency. In

[developer] Re: [openzfs/openzfs] 7938 disable LBA weighting on files and SSDs (#470)

richardelling commented on this pull request. > @@ -59,6 +59,11 @@ vdev_file_open(vdev_t *vd, uint64_t *psize, uint64_t > *max_psize, int error; /* +* Rotational optimizations only make sense on block devices I don't think we need a code change here, there is lots of

Re: [developer] ZFS user quotas with compression

> On Nov 7, 2016, at 2:45 PM, Jorgen Lundman <lund...@lundman.net> wrote: > > Richard Elling wrote: > >> >> No, this is a lie. If I upload 50GB of data that compresses or dedups to >> 25GB, then I want to pay for 25GB. >> — richard > > Huh ne

Re: [developer] ZFS user quotas with compression

> On Nov 7, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Paul B. Henson <hen...@acm.org> wrote: > >> From: Richard Elling >> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 9:44 AM >> >> As a customer, I don’t like getting ripped off. I think you need to find a >> better >> justifica

Re: [developer] Re: ZFS user quotas with compression

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Ben RUBSON <ben.rub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 04 Nov 2016, at 19:13, Richard Elling <richard.ell...@richardelling.com >> <mailto:richard.ell...@richardelling.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On N

Re: [developer] Re: ZFS user quotas with compression

> On Nov 4, 2016, at 11:11 AM, MrRakeshsank . wrote: > > any one has any ideas on it? Thanks! Why would you want a "logical size" quota as opposed to the currently implemented "allocation size" quota? — richard > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:33 PM, MrRakeshsank .