2008/9/30 Jean Dion [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
iSCSI requires dedicated network and not a shared network or even VLAN.
Backup cause large I/O that fill your network quickly. Like ans SAN today.
Could you clarify why it is not suitable to use VLANs for iSCSI?
The good news is that even though the answer to your question is no, it
doesn't matter because it sounds like what you are doing is a piece of cake :)
Given how cheap hardware is, and how modest your requirements sound, I expect
you could build multiple custom systems for the cost of an EMC
Thanks for all the answers .. Please find more questions below :)
- Good to know EMC filers do not have end2end checksums! What about netapp ?
- Any other limitations of the big two NAS vendors as compared to zfs ?
- I still don't have my original question answered, I want to somehow assess
the
On Sep 30, 2008, at 06:58, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
- I still don't have my original question answered, I want to
somehow assess
the reliability of that zfs storage stack. If there's no hard data
on that,
then if any storage expert who works with lots of systems can give his
impression of
Hi,
can anyone please tell me what is the maximum number of files that can be there
in 1 folder in Solaris with ZSF file system.
I am working on an application in which I have to support 1mn users. In my
application I am using MySql MyISAM and in MyISAM there is 3 files created for
1 table. I
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ram Sharma wrote:
Hi,
can anyone please tell me what is the maximum number of files that can
be there in 1 folder in Solaris with ZSF file system.
By folder, I assume you mean directory and not, say, pool. In any case,
the 'limit' is 2^48, but that's effectively no
Simple. You cannot go faster than the slowest link.
Any VLAN share the bandwidth workload and do not provide a dedicated
bandwidth for each of them. That means if you have multiple VLAN
coming out of the same wire of your server you do not have "n" time the
bandwidth but only a fraction of
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 06:01:18PM -0700, Jean Dion wrote:
Do you have dedicated iSCSI ports from your server to your NetApp?
Yes, it's a dedicated redundant gigabit network.
iSCSI requires dedicated network and not a shared network or even VLAN.
Backup cause large I/O that fill your
ZFS has not limit for snapshots and filesystems too, but try to create a lot
snapshots and filesytems and you will have to wait a lot for your pool to
import too... ;-)
I think you should not think about the limits, but performance. Any
filesytem with *too many entries by directory will
For Solaris internal debugging tools look here
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/advocacy/events/techdays/seattle/OS_SEA_POD_JMAURO.pdf;jsessionid=9B3E275EEB6F1A0E0BC191D8DEC0F965
ZFS specifics is available here
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Troubleshooting_Guide
Jean
I have a ZFS disk (c1t0d0) in a eSATA/USB2 enclosure.
If I would build this drive in the machine (internal SATA) it would
become c3t1do. When I did it (for testing) zpool status did not see it.
What do I have to do to be able to switch this drive?
--
Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 14:00, dick hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do I have to do to be able to switch this drive?
I'd suggest running zpool import. If that doesn't show the pool,
put it back in the external enclosure, run zpool export mypool and
then see if it shows up in zpool
Ahmed Kamal wrote:
Thanks for all the answers .. Please find more questions below :)
- Good to know EMC filers do not have end2end checksums! What about
netapp ?
If they are not at the end, they can't do end-to-end data validation.
Ideally, application writers would do this, but it is a lot
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
- I still don't have my original question answered, I want to somehow assess
the reliability of that zfs storage stack. If there's no hard data on that,
then if any storage expert who works with lots of systems can give his
impression of the reliability
I guess I am mostly interested in MTDL for a zfs system on whitebox hardware
(like pogo), vs dataonTap on netapp hardware. Any numbers ?
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
- I still don't have my original
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
I guess I am mostly interested in MTDL for a zfs system on whitebox hardware
(like pogo), vs dataonTap on netapp hardware. Any numbers ?
Barring kernel bugs or memory errors, Richard Elling's blog entry
seems to be the best place use as a guide:
Ahmed Kamal wrote:
I guess I am mostly interested in MTDL for a zfs system on whitebox
hardware (like pogo), vs dataonTap on netapp hardware. Any numbers ?
It depends to a large degree on the disks chosen. NetApp uses enterprise
class disks and you can expect better reliability from such
Stephen Quintero [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am running OpenSolaris 2008.05 as a PV guest under Xen. If you
import the bootable root pool of a VM into another Solaris VM, the
root pool is no longer bootable.
I had a similar problem: After installing and booting Opensolaris
2008.05, I succeded
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
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
___
2008/9/30 Jean Dion [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Simple. You cannot go faster than the slowest link.
That is indeed correct, but what is the slowest link when using a
Layer 2 VLAN? You made a broad statement that iSCSI 'requires' a
dedicated, standalone network. I do not believe this is the case.
Any
Normal iSCSI setup split network traffic at physical layer and not
logical layer. That mean physical ports and often physical PCI bridge
chip if you can. That will be fine for small traffic but we are
talking backup performance issues. IP network and number of small
files are very often the
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:32:50AM -0700, William D. Hathaway wrote:
Gary -
Besides the network questions...
Yes, I suppose I should see if traffic on the Iscsi network is
hitting a limit of some sort.
What does your zpool status look like?
Pretty simple:
$ zpool status
pool:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 06:01:18PM -0700, Jean Dion wrote:
Legato client and server contains tuning parameters to avoid such small file
problems. Check your Legato buffer parameters. These buffer will use your
server memory as disk cache.
Our backup person tells me that there are no
ak == Ahmed Kamal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ak I need to answer and weigh against the cost.
I suggest translating the reliability problems into a cost for
mitigating them: price the ZFS alternative as two systems, and keep
the second system offline except for nightly backup. Since you care
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Run the service with the file_chown privilege. See privileges(5),
rbac(5) and if it runs as an SMF service smf_method(5).
Thanks for the pointer. After reviewing this documentation, it seems that
file_chown_self is the best privilege to delegate, as
Thanks guys, it seems the problem is even more difficult than I thought, and
it seems there is no real measure for the software quality of the zfs stack
vs others, neutralizing the hardware used under both. I will be using ECC
RAM, since you mentioned it, and I will shift to using enterprise disks
2008/9/30 Jean Dion [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you want performance you do not put all your I/O across the same physical
wire. Once again you cannot go faster than the physical wire can support
(CAT5E, CAT6, fibre). No matter if it is layer 2 or not. Using VLAN on
single port you share the
Server: T5120 on 10 U5
Storage: Internal 8 drives on SAS HW RAID (R5)
Oracle: ZFS fs, recordsize=8K and atime=off
Tape: LTO-4 (half height) on SAS interface.
Dumping a large file from memory using tar to LTO yields 44 MB/s ... I suspect
the CPU cannot push more since it's a single thread doing
Inserting the drive does not automatically mount the ZFS filesystem on it. You
need to use the zpool import command which lists any pools available to
import, then zpool import -f {name of pool} to force the import (to force the
import if you haven't exported the pool first).
Cheers
Andrew.
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Now that I'm using ECC RAM, and enterprisey disks, Does this put this
solution in par with low end netapp 2020 for example ?
*sort of*. What are you going to be using it for? Half the beauty of
NetApp are all the
gm_sjo wrote:
2008/9/30 Jean Dion [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If you want performance you do not put all your I/O across the same physical
wire. Once again you cannot go faster than the physical wire can support
(CAT5E, CAT6, fibre). No matter if it is layer 2 or not. Using VLAN on
single port
Louwtjie Burger wrote:
Dumping a large file from memory using tar to LTO yields 44 MB/s ... I
suspect the CPU cannot push more since it's a single thread doing all the
work.
Dumping oracle db files from filesystem yields ~ 25 MB/s. The interesting bit
(apart from it being a rather slow
No apology necessary and I'm glad you figured it out - I was just
reading this thread and thinking I'm missing something here - this
can't be right.
If you have the budget to run a few more experiments, try this
SuperMicro card:
http://www.springsource.com/repository/app/faq
that others
Is there more information that I need to post in order to help diagnose this
problem?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Ross Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to come back and face the shame; this was a total newbie mistake by
myself.
I followed the ZFS shortcuts for noobs guide off bigadmin;
http://wikis.sun.com/display/BigAdmin/ZFS+Shortcuts+for+Noobs
What that had
Just to confuse you more, I mean, give you another point of view:
- CPU: 1 Xeon Quad Core E5410 2.33GHz 12MB Cache 1333MHz
The reason the Xeon line is good is because it allows you to squeeze maximum
performance out of a given processor technology from Intel, possibly getting
the highest
BJ Quinn wrote:
Is there more information that I need to post in order to help diagnose this
problem?
Segmentation faults should be correctly handled by the software.
Please file a bug and attach the core.
http://bugs.opensolaris.org
-- richard
On 30-Sep-08, at 6:58 AM, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
Thanks for all the answers .. Please find more questions below :)
- Good to know EMC filers do not have end2end checksums! What about
netapp ?
Blunty - no remote storage can have it by definition. The checksum
needs to be computed as close as
Hello Juergen,
Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 5:43:56 PM, you wrote:
JN Stephen Quintero [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am running OpenSolaris 2008.05 as a PV guest under Xen. If you
import the bootable root pool of a VM into another Solaris VM, the
root pool is no longer bootable.
JN I had a
On 30-Sep-08, at 7:50 AM, Ram Sharma wrote:
Hi,
can anyone please tell me what is the maximum number of files that
can be there in 1 folder in Solaris with ZSF file system.
I am working on an application in which I have to support 1mn
users. In my application I am using MySql MyISAM
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No apology necessary and I'm glad you figured it out - I was just
reading this thread and thinking I'm missing something here - this
can't be right.
If you have the budget to run a few more experiments, try this
SuperMicro
Toby Thain wrote:
On 30-Sep-08, at 6:58 AM, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
Thanks for all the answers .. Please find more questions below :)
- Good to know EMC filers do not have end2end checksums! What about
netapp ?
Blunty - no remote storage can have it by definition. The checksum
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On 30-Sep-08, at 6:58 AM, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
Thanks for all the answers .. Please find more questions below :)
- Good to know EMC filers do not have end2end checksums! What about
netapp ?
Blunty - no remote storage
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Juergen,
Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 5:43:56 PM, you wrote:
JN Stephen Quintero [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am running OpenSolaris 2008.05 as a PV guest under Xen. If you
import the bootable root pool of a VM into another Solaris VM, the
Please forgive my ignorance. I'm fairly new to Solaris (Linux convert), and
although I recognize that Linux has the same concept of Segmentation faults /
core dumps, I believe my typical response to a Segmentation Fault was to
upgrade the kernel and that always fixed the problem (i.e. somebody
At this point, ZFS is performing admirably with the Areca card. Also, that
card is only 8-port, and the Areca controllers I have are 12-port. My chassis
has 24 SATA bays, so being able to cover all the drives with 2 controllers is
preferable.
Also, the driver for the Areca controllers is
BJ Quinn wrote:
Please forgive my ignorance. I'm fairly new to Solaris (Linux convert), and
although I recognize that Linux has the same concept of Segmentation faults /
core dumps, I believe my typical response to a Segmentation Fault was to
upgrade the kernel and that always fixed the
Will Murnane wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 21:48, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why ZFS can do this and hardware solutions can't (being several
unreliable subsystems away from the data).
So how is a Server running Solaris with a QLogic HBA connected to an FC JBOD
any different
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 03:19:40PM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
To make Will's argument more succinct (wink), with a NetApp,
undetectable (by the NetApp) errors can be introduced at the HBA and
transport layer (FC Switch, slightly damage cable) levels. ZFS will
detect such errors, and fix
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To make Will's argument more succinct (wink), with a NetApp, undetectable
(by the NetApp) errors can be introduced at the HBA and transport layer (FC
Switch, slightly damage cable) levels. ZFS will detect such errors,
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Ross Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
At this point, ZFS is performing admirably with the Areca card. Also, that
card is only 8-port, and the Areca controllers I have are 12-port. My
chassis has 24 SATA bays, so being able to cover all the drives with 2
I have not tried importing bootable root pools onto other VMs, but there have
been recent ZFS bug fixes in the area of importing and exporting bootable root
pools - the panic might not occur on Solaris Nevada releases after
approximately 97.
There are still issues with renaming of bootable
Intel mainstream (and indeed many tech companies') stuff is purposely
stratified from the enterprise stuff by cutting out features like ECC and
higher memory capacity and using different interface form factors.
Well I guess I am getting a Xeon anyway
There is nothing magical about SAS
True, but a search for zfs segmentation fault returns 500 bugs. It's
possible one of those is related to my issue, but it would take all day to find
out. If it's not flaky or unstable, I'd like to try upgrading to the
newest kernel first, unless my Linux mindset is truly out of place here, or
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Ahmed Kamal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm ... well, there is a considerable price difference, so unless someone
says I'm horribly mistaken, I now want to go back to Barracuda ES 1TB 7200
drives. By the way, how many of those would saturate a single (non
Ahmed Kamal wrote:
BTW, for everyone saying zfs is more reliable because it's closer to the
application than a netapp, well at least in my case it isn't. The
solaris box will be NFS sharing and the apps will be running on remote
Linux boxes. So, I guess this makes them equal. How about a
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Miles Nordin wrote:
I think you need two zpools, or zpool + LVM2/XFS, some kind of
two-filesystem setup, because of the ZFS corruption and
panic/freeze-on-import problems. Having two zpools helps with other
If ZFS provides such a terrible experience for you can I be
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
So, I guess this makes them equal. How about a new reliable NFS protocol,
that computes the hashes on the client side, sends it over the wire to be
written remotely on the zfs storage node ?!
Modern NFS runs over a TCP connection, which includes its own
Actually, the one that'll hurt most is ironically the most closely
related to bad database schema design... With a zillion files in the one
directory, if someone does an 'ls' in that directory, it'll not only
take ages, but steal a whole heap of memory and compute power...
Provided the only
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 06:09:30PM -0500, Tim wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Ahmed Kamal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, for everyone saying zfs is more reliable because it's closer to the
application than a netapp, well at least in my case it isn't. The solaris
box will be NFS
rt == Robert Thurlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rt introduces a separate protection domain for the NFS link.
There are checksums in the ethernet FCS, checksums in IP headers,
checksums in UDP headers (which are sometimes ignored), and checksums
in TCP (which are not ignored). There might be
BJ Quinn wrote:
True, but a search for zfs segmentation fault returns 500 bugs. It's
possible one of those is related to my issue, but it would take all day to
find out. If it's not flaky or unstable, I'd like to try upgrading to
the newest kernel first, unless my Linux mindset is truly
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, BJ Quinn wrote:
True, but a search for zfs segmentation fault returns 500 bugs.
It's possible one of those is related to my issue, but it would take
all day to find out. If it's not flaky or unstable, I'd like to
try upgrading to the newest kernel first, unless my
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
zillion I/O's you need to deal with each time you list the entire directory.
an ls -1rt on a directory with about 1.2 million files with names like
afile1202899 takes minutes to complete on my box, and we see 'ls' get to
in excess of 700MB rss...
On Sep 30, 2008, at 19:44, Miles Nordin wrote:
There are checksums in the ethernet FCS, checksums in IP headers,
checksums in UDP headers (which are sometimes ignored), and checksums
in TCP (which are not ignored). There might be an RPC layer checksum,
too, not sure.
Not of which helped
On Sep 30, 2008, at 19:09, Tim wrote:
SAS has far greater performance, and if your workload is extremely
random,
will have a longer MTBF. SATA drives suffer badly on random
workloads.
Well, if you can probably afford more SATA drives for the purchase
price, you can put them in a
Hello, I'm looking for info on adding a disk to my current zfs pool. I am
running OpenSoarlis snv_98. I have upgraded my pool since my image-update.
When I installed OpenSolaris it was a machine with 2 hard disks (regular IDE).
Is it possible to add the second hard disk to the pool to
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:15 PM, David Magda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 30, 2008, at 19:09, Tim wrote:
SAS has far greater performance, and if your workload is extremely random,
will have a longer MTBF. SATA drives suffer badly on random workloads.
Well, if you can probably afford
Well, if you can probably afford more SATA drives for the purchase
price, you can put them in a striped-mirror set up, and that may help
things. If your disks are cheap you can afford to buy more of them
(space, heat, and power not withstanding).
Hmm, that's actually cool !
If I configure
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
So, I guess this makes them equal. How about a new reliable NFS protocol,
that computes the hashes on the client side, sends it over the wire to be
written remotely on the zfs storage node ?!
Modern NFS runs over a TCP
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Ahmed Kamal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, if you can probably afford more SATA drives for the purchase
price, you can put them in a striped-mirror set up, and that may help
things. If your disks are cheap you can afford to buy more of them
(space, heat,
Miles Nordin wrote:
There are checksums in the ethernet FCS, checksums in IP headers,
checksums in UDP headers (which are sometimes ignored), and checksums
in TCP (which are not ignored). There might be an RPC layer checksum,
too, not sure.
Different arguments can be made against each, I
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
That being said, there is a large delta in your results and mine... If I get
a chance, I'll look into it...
I suspect it's a cached versus I/O issue...
The first time I posted was the first time the directory has been read
in well over a month so
Tim wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:15 PM, David Magda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 30, 2008, at 19:09, Tim wrote:
SAS has far greater performance, and if your workload is
extremely random,
will have a longer MTBF. SATA drives
I observe that there are no disk vendors supplying SATA disks
with speed 7,200 rpm. It is no wonder that a 10k rpm disk
outperforms a 7,200 rpm disk for random workloads. I'll attribute
this to intentional market segmentation by the industry rather than
a deficiency in the transfer
Ahmed Kamal wrote:
I observe that there are no disk vendors supplying SATA disks
with speed 7,200 rpm. It is no wonder that a 10k rpm disk
outperforms a 7,200 rpm disk for random workloads. I'll attribute
this to intentional market segmentation by the industry rather than
So, performance aside, does SAS have other benefits ? Data integrity ? How
would a 8 raid1 sata compare vs another 8 smaller SAS disks in raidz(2) ?
Like apples and pomegranates. Both should be able to saturate a GbE link.
You're the expert, but isn't the 100M/s for streaming not random
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Ahmed Kamal wrote:
Always assuming 2 spare disks, and Using the sata disks, I would configure
them in raid1 mirror (raid6 for the 400G), Besides being cheaper, I would
get more useable space (4TB vs 2.4TB), Better performance of raid1 (right?),
and better data reliability
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Ahmed Kamal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, performance aside, does SAS have other benefits ? Data integrity ? How
would a 8 raid1 sata compare vs another 8 smaller SAS disks in raidz(2) ?
Like apples and pomegranates. Both should be able to saturate a GbE
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Robert Thurlow wrote:
Modern NFS runs over a TCP connection, which includes its own data
validation. This surely helps.
Less than we'd sometimes like :-) The TCP checksum isn't
very strong, and we've seen corruption tied to a broken
router, where the Ethernet
Hm, richard's excellent Graphs here http://blogs.sun.com/relling/tags/mttdl
as well as his words say he prefers mirroring over raidz/raidz2 almost
always. It's better for performance and MTTDL.
Since 8 sata raid1 is cheaper and probably more reliable than 8 raidz2 sas
(and I dont need extra sas
On 30-Sep-08, at 6:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Erik Trimble
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To make Will's argument more succinct (wink), with a NetApp,
undetectable (by the NetApp) errors can be introduced at the HBA
and transport layer (FC Switch, slightly damage
rt == Robert Thurlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
dm == David Magda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
dm Not of which helped Amazon when their S3 service went down due
dm to a flipped bit:
ok, I get that S3 went down due to corruption, and that the network
checksums I mentioned failed to prevent
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
* NetApp's block-appended checksum approach appears similar but is in fact
much stronger. Like many arrays, NetApp formats its drives with 520-byte
sectors. It then groups them into 8-sector blocks: 4K of data (the WAFL
Ahmed Kamal wrote:
So, performance aside, does SAS have other benefits ? Data
integrity ? How would a 8 raid1 sata compare vs another 8 smaller
SAS disks in raidz(2) ?
Like apples and pomegranates. Both should be able to saturate a
GbE link.
You're the expert, but
I am in the process of beefing up our development environment. In essence I am
really going simply replicate what we have spread across here and there (that
what happens when you keep running out of disk space). Unfortunately, I
inherited all of this and the guy who dreamed up the conflagration
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Nathan Kroenert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, the one that'll hurt most is ironically the most closely
related to bad database schema design... With a zillion files in the one
directory, if someone does an 'ls' in that directory, it'll not only
take ages,
On 30-Sep-08, at 9:54 PM, Tim wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Toby Thain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NetApp's block-appended checksum approach appears similar but is
in fact much stronger. Like many arrays, NetApp formats its drives
with 520-byte sectors. It then groups them
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
zillion I/O's you need to deal with each time you list the entire directory.
an ls -1rt on a directory with about 1.2 million files with names like
afile1202899 takes minutes to complete on my box, and we see 'ls' get to
Josh Hardman wrote:
Hello, I'm looking for info on adding a disk to my current zfs pool. I am
running OpenSoarlis snv_98. I have upgraded my pool since my image-update.
When I installed OpenSolaris it was a machine with 2 hard disks (regular
IDE). Is it possible to add the second hard
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 08:54:50PM -0500, Tim wrote:
As it does in ANY fileserver scenario, INCLUDING zfs. He is building a
FILESERVER. This is not an APPLICATION server. You seem to be stuck on
this idea that everyone is using ZFS on the server they're running the
application. That does a
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 09:44:21PM -0500, Al Hopper wrote:
This behavior is common to tmpfs, UFS and I tested it on early ZFS
releases. I have no idea why - I have not made the time to figure it
out. What I have observed is that all operations on your (victim)
test directory will max out
Tim wrote:
As it does in ANY fileserver scenario, INCLUDING zfs. He is building
a FILESERVER. This is not an APPLICATION server. You seem to be
stuck on this idea that everyone is using ZFS on the server they're
running the application. That does a GREAT job of creating disparate
storage
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
ZFS allows the architectural option of separate storage without losing end
to end protection, so the distinction is still important. Of course this
means ZFS itself runs on the application server, but so what?
--Toby
So
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim wrote:
As it does in ANY fileserver scenario, INCLUDING zfs. He is building
a FILESERVER. This is not an APPLICATION server. You seem to be
stuck on this idea that everyone is using ZFS on the server they're
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 08:54:50PM -0500, Tim wrote:
As it does in ANY fileserver scenario, INCLUDING zfs. He is building a
FILESERVER. This is not an APPLICATION server. You seem to be stuck on
this idea that
Hi Guys,
Thanks for so many good comments. Perhaps I got even more than what I asked for!
I am targeting 1 million users for my application.My DB will be on solaris
machine.And the reason I am making one table per user is that it will be a
simple design as compared to keeping all the data in
98 matches
Mail list logo
