On May 16, 2009, at 8:50 AM, Adam McDougall wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 05:02:22PM -0700, Kip Macy wrote:
I've MFC'd ZFS v13 to RELENG_7 in a work branch. Please test if you
can.
http://svn.freebsd.org/base/user/kmacy/ZFS_MFC/
The standard disclaimers apply. This has only been lightly tested
in a
VM. Please do not use it with data you care about at this time.
Thanks,
Kip
Seems to work for me so far. I had a zfs send hang part way through
and
with a notable speed difference depending on the direction but this is
literally the first time I've tried zfs send/recv and the systems are
setup different so I have no idea if it would have happened anyway.
Eventually I could probably make these test systems more similar to
give a
fair test, but wanted to mention it so others could check.
Thanks for working on the MFC, I'm excited to see progress there!
It will play a factor in some upcoming server plans even if the MFC
doesn't happen for months.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
"
We're now testing ZFS under FreeBSD (7.2 and CURRENT) quite
extensively, because our primary goal is to setup a fileserver that
can scale up to 80TB using high-density, low-cost storage (2TB SATA II
disks in a 42 bay, 4 unit storage). The fact that ZFS v13 has been
MFC'ed sounds good to me. I'd like to recommend to test the most basic
physical stress conditions, eg:
- Pulling out one healthy disk in a raidz2 pool;
- Pulling it back and see if resilvering starts in a reasonable time
(we experienced consolle locks, access via SSH to the box was still
possible and fully responsive);
- Pulling out TWO healthy disks in a raidz2 pool;
- Pulling them back one at a time (and two at the same time) and see
if the pool is resilvered in a reasonable time;
- Too many combinations to be listed here.
I'll be more than happy if the FreeBSD community will came out with a
sort of ZFS standard stress test suite (both physical and logical), in
order to be able to compare the ZFS reliability when used in different
scenarios (eg: our scenario is made of a v20Z server with 6Gb RAM
directly attached via a 2Gb Qlogic Fibre Channel adapter, the JBOD is
an Apple Xraid fully loaded with 450Gb PATA disks, all sysctl
parameters set accordingly to the ZFS tuning guide).
I'm strongly conviced that, for a number of reasons, FreeBSD + ZFS can
be the silver bullet in the enterprise storage just because of the
following:
PROS:
- Solaris/OpenSolaris are limited to an NGROUPS_MAX value of 16 (http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=4088757
, http://www.j3e.de/ngroups.html) while FreeBSD isn't (we are using an
NGROUPS_MAX value of 64 right now). This is a good point if you are
serving hundreds of clients, authenticated via LDAP (Posix accounts
RFC 2307) and you are living in a mixed shop (MACs and PCs.. like we
do);
- Apple is introducing ZFS support on non-bootable storage under OS X
10.6 but nobody really knows what ZFS version will be made available;
- License constraints on Linux. ZFS can't be used in kernel mode, only
using FUSE at the price of degraded performance (AFAIK);
- Maybe I'm missing something but it's ok since I'm slightly drunk as
of now. Please help (by suggesting missing points, not by suggesting
me to refrain from drinking on Saturday's night ;-).
CONS:
- FreeBSD is currently lacking an enterprise-level support for modern
4Gb Fibre Channel HBAs, as you can read here:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2009-April/date.html#3876
<-- No reply, AFAIK;
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2008-October/003686.html
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-scsi/2008-November/003705.html
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2008-November/046556.html
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2008-November/046602.html
Before throwing rotting tomatoes straight to me please consider the
following facts:
- Our infrastructure is 90% based on FreeBSD. It has proven to be rock
solid over a 7 year timespan. Are we happy ? Definitely yes.;
- We are grateful to the FreeBSD community, this mail should be
intended as a constructive criticism in order to exploit a "sweet
spot" in storage enterprise. This can dramatically leverage the
adoption of FreeBSD in the enterprise, if we consider the fact that,
due to the global crisis, most enterprises will start to look at "low-
cost, highly reliable, higly scalable storage systems";
- We are also grateful to the Pawel Jakub Dawidek and all the other
FreeBSD ZFS contributors, you are doing a great job guys, thanks.
What can I do to foster this trend, and being able to further enhance
the ZFS support under FreeBSD, provided that we cannot contribute
coding skills ?
Unfortunately not a lot but we can do the following:
- Donate some hardware (Fibre Channel HBAs) to the FreeBSD project
(paid from my pocket, not my employer's one);
- Donate some money (paid from my employer's pocket, if I can
demonstrate that this can help us to save big bucks on high-end
storage systems);
- Detail in a very precise way all the tests that we are doing on ZFS,
using the following storage: Apple Xraid, Nexsan Sas/SATAbeast, EMC
(waiting for the final configuration) as a contribution to the FreeBSD
community.
In a few words, please let the community know what we can do in order
to make this dream come true.
FreeBSD: The power to serve, on steroids.
Alessandro Dellavedova
European Institute of Oncology
Department of Experimental Oncology
Via Adamello, 16 - 20139 Milan, Italy
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
