Hi,all
I did some test about MySQL's Insert performance on ZFS, and met a big
performance problem,*i'm not sure what's the point*.
Environment
2 Intel X5560 (8 core), 12GB RAM, 7 slc SSD(Intel).
A Java client run 8 threads concurrency insert into one Innodb table:
*~600 qps when
Bouncing a thread from the device drivers list:
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=357176
Does anybody know if OpenSolaris will support this new Supermicro card,
based on the Marvell 88SE6480 chipset? It's a true PCI Express 8 port JBOD
SAS/SATA controller with pricing
2009/4/14 Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net
well that's not what I meant though. The battery RAM cache's behavior
can't be determined by RTFS whether you use ZFS or not, and the
behavior matters to both ZFS users and non ZFS users. The advantage I
saw to ZFS slogs, is that you can inspect the
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Will Murnane will.murn...@gmail.comwrote:
Has anyone done any specific testing with SSD devices and solaris other
than
the FISHWORKS stuff? Which is better for what - SLC and MLC?
My impression is that the flash controllers make a much bigger
difference
On Apr 15, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Nicholas Lee emptysa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Will Murnane
will.murn...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone done any specific testing with SSD devices and solaris
other than
the FISHWORKS stuff? Which is better for what - SLC and
Bouncing a thread from the device drivers list:
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=357176
Does anybody know if OpenSolaris will support this new Supermicro card,
based on the Marvell 88SE6480 chipset? It's a true PCI Express 8 port JBOD
SAS/SATA controller with pricing
My question is related to this:
# zpool status
pool: rpool
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An
attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected.
action: Determine if the device needs to be replaced, and clear the errors
Hi Uwe,
You can use the fmdump feature to help determine whether these disk
errors are persistent.
Using fmdump -ev will provide a lot of detail but you can review
how many disks errors have occurred and for how long.
A brief description is provided here:
Nicholas Lee wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Will Murnane will.murn...@gmail.com
mailto:will.murn...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone done any specific testing with SSD devices and
solaris other than
the FISHWORKS stuff? Which is better for what - SLC and MLC?
My
Uwe Dippel wrote:
My question is related to this:
# zpool status
pool: rpool
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An
attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected.
action: Determine if the device needs to be replaced, and
Experimenting with OpenSolaris on an elderly PC with equally
elderly drives, zpool status shows errors after a pkg image-update
followed by a scrub. It is entirely possible that one of these
drives is flaky, but surely the whole point of a zfs mirror is
to avoid this? It seems unlikely that both
And it looks like the Intel fragmentation issue is fixed as well:
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16739
FYI, Intel recently had a new firmware release. IMHO, odds are that
this will be as common as HDD firmware releases, at least for the
next few years.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Uwe Dippel wrote:
Now I wonder where that error came from. It was just a single checksum error.
It couldn't go away with an earlier scrub, and seemingly left no traces of
badness on the drive. Something serious? At least it looks a tad
contradictory: Applications are
Richard Elling wrote:
status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An
attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected.
NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
rpool ONLINE 0 0 0
c1d0s0ONLINE 0 0 1
errors:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:12 AM, myxi...@googlemail.com wrote:
Bouncing a thread from the device drivers list:
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=357176
Does anybody know if OpenSolaris will support this new Supermicro card,
based on the Marvell 88SE6480 chipset? It's a true
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Since it was not reported that user data was impacted, it seems likely
that there was a read failure (or bad checksum) for ZFS metadata which
is redundantly stored.
(Maybe I am too much of a linguist to not stumble over the wording
here.) If it is 'redundant', it is
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Uwe Dippel udip...@gmail.com wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Since it was not reported that user data was impacted, it seems likely
that there was a read failure (or bad checksum) for ZFS metadata which is
redundantly stored.
(Maybe I am too much of a
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Uwe Dippel udip...@gmail.com wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Since it was not reported that user data was impacted, it seems likely
that there was a read failure (or bad checksum) for ZFS metadata which is
redundantly stored.
(Maybe I am too much of a
Just a quick note for the benefit of the list, the hot swap problems Tim is
talking about were the ones with the Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 card, and this
card is working perfectly now for me in OpenSolaris 2008.11 and 2009.06.
There was no note of the bug being fixed, but one of the marvell
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:28:45 +0800, ??
sky...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,all
I did some test about MySQL's Insert performance
on ZFS, and met a big performance problem,
*i'm not sure what's the point*.
[snip performance and config info]
Is there any one can help me,
why fsync on zfs is so
Uwe Dippel wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An
attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected.
NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
rpool ONLINE 0 0 0
c1d0s0ONLINE 0
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 07:39:13PM +0200, Kees Nuyt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:28:45 +0800, ??
sky...@gmail.com wrote:
I did some test about MySQL's Insert performance
on ZFS, and met a big performance problem,
*i'm not sure what's the point*.
Q1: Did you set the filesystem's
Hi,
I've been working on an improved bart(1M) that is supposed to address
open issues including XATTR support. In writing the XATTR support the
only MT appropriate solution I've found that doesn't make bad privilege
assumptions for performing a stat depends on openat() to get the
parent's
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Frank Middleton wrote:
Experimenting with OpenSolaris on an elderly PC with equally
elderly drives, zpool status shows errors after a pkg image-update
followed by a scrub. It is entirely possible that one of these
drives is flaky, but surely the whole point of a zfs mirror
How can I make zfs give some shorter kind of names to the auto snapshots
it takes.
I'd like to alter the date string and shorten like this:
zfs-auto-snap:frequent-2009-04-15-16:30
Would become:
a:freq-041509_1630
That's less than 1/2 the 40 characters the auto process generates.
I find
Hi Harry,
On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 16:59 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
How can I make zfs give some shorter kind of names to the auto snapshots
it takes.
I'd like to alter the date string and shorten like this:
zfs-auto-snap:frequent-2009-04-15-16:30
Would become:
a:freq-041509_1630
Tim Foster tim.fos...@sun.com writes:
Hope this helps,
Yes and a good bunch of info there... thanks.
Looks way to complicated just sooth line wrapping in some
circumstances. Thanks for the walk thru though.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.comwrote:
As for space, 18GBytes is much, much larger than 99.9+% of workloads
require for slog space. Most measurements I've seen indicate that 100
MBytes
will be quite satisfactory for most folks. Unfortunately, there
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Nicholas Lee emptysa...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me see if I understand this: A SSD slog can handle, say, 5000 (4k)
transactions in a sec (20M/s) vs maybe 300 (4k) iops for a single HDD. The
slog can then batch and dump say 30s worth of transactions - 600M as
On 04/15/09 14:30, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Frank Middleton wrote:
zpool status shows errors after a pkg image-update
followed by a scrub.
If a corruption occured in the main memory, the backplane, or the disk
controller during the writes to these files, then the original
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Harry Putnam wrote:
Would become:
a:freq-041509_1630
Can I suggest perhaps something inspired by the old convention for DNS
serials, along the lines of fmmddtt? Like:
a:f200904151630
This makes things easier to sort and lines up in a tidy manner.
--
Andre van
On 15-Apr-09, at 8:31 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 04/15/09 14:30, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Frank Middleton wrote:
zpool status shows errors after a pkg image-update
followed by a scrub.
If a corruption occured in the main memory, the backplane, or the
disk
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:32:13PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An
attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected.
...
errors: No known data errors
Now I wonder where that error came from. It was just
Q1: Did you set the filesystem's recordsize to match MySQL/InnoDB's page
size?
yes, my recordsize is 16K,the same as innodb page size.
Q2: Did you disable the ZIL? If so then do re-enable it.
ZIL is enable.
And this day ,i do more test,compare with ufs ,result like this:
*6 ssd as zpool:*
34 matches
Mail list logo
