Adrian Saul wrote:
Any idea on the timeline or future of "zfs split" ?
It isn't a priority for now.
--matt
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
For background on what this is, see:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=24416#24416
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=25200#25200
=
zfs-discuss 02/01 - 02/15
=
Size of all threads during per
Hi Przemol,
I think Casper had a good point bringing up the data integrity
features when using ZFS for RAID. Big companies do a lot of things
"just because that's the certified way" that end up biting them in the
rear. Trusting your SAN arrays is one of them. That all being said,
the need to do m
Hi Eric,
Everything Mark said.
We as a customer ran into this running MySQL on a Thumper (and T2000).
We solved it on the Thumper by limiting the ARC to 4GB:
/etc/system: set zfs:zfs_arc_max = 0x1 #4GB
This has worked marvelously over the past 50 days. The ARC stays
around 5-6GB now. L
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:45:04AM -0800, Olaf Manczak wrote:
>
> Obviously, scrubbing and correcting "hard" errors that result in
> ZFS checksum errors is very beneficial. However, it won't address the
> case of "soft" errors when the disk returns correct data but
> observes some problems reading
Eric Schrock wrote:
1. Some sort of background process to proactively find errors on disks
in use by ZFS. This will be accomplished by a background scrubbing
option, dependent on the block-rewriting work Matt and Mark are
working on. This will allow something like "zpool set scrub=2we
On Feb 22, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Carisdad wrote:
eric kustarz wrote:
On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Carisdad wrote:
I've seen very good performance on streaming large files to ZFS
on a T2000. We have been looking at using the T2000 as a disk
storage unit for backups. I've been able to push o
eric kustarz wrote:
On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Carisdad wrote:
I've seen very good performance on streaming large files to ZFS on a
T2000. We have been looking at using the T2000 as a disk storage
unit for backups. I've been able to push over 500MB/s to the disks.
Setup is EMC Clariion CX
This issue has been discussed a number of times in this forum.
To summerize:
ZFS (specifically, the ARC) will try to use *most* of the systems
available memory to cache file system data. The default is to
max out at physmem-1GB (i.e., use all of physical memory except
for 1GB). In the face of m
On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Carisdad wrote:
I've seen very good performance on streaming large files to ZFS on
a T2000. We have been looking at using the T2000 as a disk storage
unit for backups. I've been able to push over 500MB/s to the
disks. Setup is EMC Clariion CX3 with 84 500GB SA
I've measured resync on some slow IDE disks (*not* an X4500) at an average
of 20 MBytes/s. So if you have a 500 GByte drive, that would resync a 100%
full file system in about 7 hours versus 11 days for some other systems
My experience is that a set of 80% full 250 MB drives took a bit les
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 04:20:58PM -0800, Eric Schrock wrote:
> Seems like there are a two pieces you're suggesting here:
>
> 1. Some sort of background process to proactively find errors on disks
>in use by ZFS. This will be accomplished by a background scrubbing
>option, dependent on th
thanks for the replies - I imagined it would have been discussed but must have
been searching the wrong terms :)
Any idea on the timeline or future of "zfs split" ?
Cheers,
Adrian
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing li
Could someone please provide comments or solution for this?
Subject: Solaris 10 ZFS problems with database applications
HELIOS TechInfo #106
Tue, 20 Feb 2007
Solaris 10 ZFS problems with database applications
--
We have t
Hello Richard,
Thursday, February 22, 2007, 3:32:07 AM, you wrote:
RE> Nissim Ben Haim wrote:
>> I was asked by a customer considering the x4500 - how much time should
>> it take to rebuild a failed Disk under RaidZ ?
>> This question keeps popping because customers perceive software RAID as
>>
Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If a disk fitness test were available to verify disk read/write and
> > performance, future drive problems could be avoided.
> >
> > Some example tests:
> > - full disk read
> > - 8kb r/w iops
> > - 1mb r/w iops
> > - raw throughput
>
> Some problems
Hello Richard,
Thursday, February 22, 2007, 3:32:07 AM, you wrote:
RE> Nissim Ben Haim wrote:
>> I was asked by a customer considering the x4500 - how much time should
>> it take to rebuild a failed Disk under RaidZ ?
>> This question keeps popping because customers perceive software RAID as
>>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 04:43:34PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I cannot let you say that.
> >Here in my company we are very interested in ZFS, but we do not care
> >about the RAID/mirror features, because we already have a SAN with
> >RAID-5 disks, and dual fabric connection to the hosts.
Hi,
now, as I'm back to Germany,I've got access to my machine at home with ZFS, so
I could test my binary patch for multi-threading with tar on a ZFS filesystems.
Results look like this:
.tar, small files (e.g. gcc source tree), speedup: x8
.tar.gz, small files (gcc sources tree), speedup x4
.ta
19 matches
Mail list logo
