Hi,
As far as i know this is a normal behaviour in ZFS...
So what we need is somesort of rebalance task what moves data around
multiple vdevs in order to achieve the best performance possible...
Take a look to
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6855425
Bruno
On
Hi,
Actually the idea of having the ZFS code inside a HW raid controllers
does seems quite interesting. Imagine the possibility of having any OS
with raid volumes backed by all the good aspects of the ZFS, specially
the checksum and the raidz vs the raid5-write-hole thing...
I also consider the
This system has since been upgraded, but the imbalance in getting worse:
zpool iostat -v tank | grep raid
raidz2 3.60T 28.5G166 41 6.97M 764K
raidz2 3.59T 33.3G170 35 7.35M 709K
raidz2 3.60T 26.1G173 35 7.36M 658K
raidz2 1.69T
On 03/25/10 09:32 PM, Bruno Sousa wrote:
On 24-3-2010 22:29, Ian Collins wrote:
On 02/28/10 08:09 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
I was running zpool iostat on a pool comprising a stripe of raidz2
vdevs that appears to be writing slowly and I notice a considerable
imbalance of both free space
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 25.03.2010 04:13, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
solar...@nedharvey.com wrote:
I think the point is to say: ZFS software raid is both faster and more
reliable than your hardware raid. Surprising
- A public interface to get the property state
That would come from libzfs. There are private interfaces just now that
are very likely what you need zfs_prop_get()/zfs_prop_set(). They aren't
documented or public though and are subject to change at any time.
mmm, as the state of the
Hi,
You never experienced any faulted drives, or something similar? So far i
only saw imbalance if the vdevs add changed, if a hotspare is used and i
think even during a replacement of one disk of a raidz2 group.
I
Bruno
On 25-3-2010 9:46, Ian Collins wrote:
On 03/25/10 09:32 PM, Bruno Sousa
On 03/25/10 11:23 PM, Bruno Sousa wrote:
On 25-3-2010 9:46, Ian Collins wrote:
On 03/25/10 09:32 PM, Bruno Sousa wrote:
On 24-3-2010 22:29, Ian Collins wrote:
On 02/28/10 08:09 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
I was running zpool iostat on a pool comprising a stripe of
Chris Dunbar wrote:
Let's say I create the ZFS file system tank/nfs and
share that over NFS. Then I create the ZFS file systems tank/nfs/foo1 and
tank/nfs/foo2. I want to manage snapshots independently for foo1 and foo2,
but I would like to be able to access both from the single NFS share for
Brandon High wrote:
If you mount server:/nfs on another host, it will not include
server:/nfs/foo1 or server:/nfs/foo2. Some nfs clients (notably
Solaris's) will attempt to mount the foo1 foo2 datasets automatically,
so it looks like you've exported everything under server:/nfs. Linux
On 25 Mar 2010, at 11:58, Robert Thurlow wrote:
Brandon High wrote:
If you mount server:/nfs on another host, it will not include
server:/nfs/foo1 or server:/nfs/foo2. Some nfs clients (notably
Solaris's) will attempt to mount the foo1 foo2 datasets
automatically, so it looks like
Well...i'm pretty much certain that at my job i faced something similar..
We had a server with 2 raidz2 groups each with 3 drives, and one drive
has failed and replaced by a hot spare. However, the balance of data
between the 2 groups of raidz2 start to be imbalance.
I assume this is due the fact
Stefan Walk wrote:
On debian linux (lenny), the nfs4 client automatically mounts subshares,
but the nfs3 client doesn't (May not be right in all cases, just my
experience).
NFSv3 has no way to do this in the protocol, so this is as
designed (and the same as current Solaris/OpenSolaris).
Rob
Hi
Instaled pci addon network card and disabled nvidia onboarad network.
All started to work as should.
So nge and nv_sata drivers does not work in b134 when shared IRQ is used.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
I think the point is to say: ZFS software raid is both faster and
more
reliable than your hardware raid. Surprising though it may be for a
newcomer, I have statistics to back that up,
Can you share it?
Sure. Just go to http://nedharvey.com and you'll see four links on the left
side,
The bigger problem is that you have to script around a disk failure, as
the array won't bring a non-redundant logicaldrive back online after a
disk failure without being kicked (which is a good thing in general,
but
annoying for ZFS).
I'd like to follow up on that point. Because until
Sorry if this has been dicussed before. I tried searching but I
couldn't find any info about it. We would like to export our ZFS
configurations in case we need to import the pool onto another box. We
do not want to backup the actual data in the zfs pool, that is already
handled through
It seems like the zpool export will ques the drives and mark the pool as
exported. This would be good if we wanted to move the pool at that time but we
are thinking of a disaster recovery scenario. It would be nice to export just
the config to where if our controller dies, we can use the zpool
In the Thoughts on ZFS Pool Backup Strategies thread it was stated that zfs
send, sends uncompress data and uses the ARC.
If zfs send sends uncompress data which has already been compress this is not
very efficient, and it would be *nice* to see it send the original compress
data. (or an
NFSv4 has a concept of a root of the overall exported filesystem
(Pseudofilesystem).
FileHandle 0 in terms of Linux it is setting fsid=0 when exporting.
Which would explain why someone said Linux (NFSv4) automounts an exported
filesystem under another exported filesystem
ie mount servername:/
Hi all,
Yet another question regarding raidz configuration..
Assuming a system with 24 disks available , having in mind reliability
as the crucial factor , secondary the usable space and finally
performance would be the last criteria, what would be the preferable
configuration ?
Should it be :
On Mar 25, 2010, at 6:11 AM, Wolfraider wrote:
It seems like the zpool export will ques the drives and mark the pool as
exported. This would be good if we wanted to move the pool at that time but
we are thinking of a disaster recovery scenario. It would be nice to export
just the config to
Christine Tran christine.t...@gmail.com writes:
OOps, I may have looked at the wrong bart.
I think he meant this BART:
http://blogs.sun.com/gbrunett/entry/automating_solaris_10_file_integrity
I'm going to make one quick comment about this, despite better
judgment to probably keep quiet. I
On Mar 25, 2010, at 6:13 AM, Damon Atkins wrote:
In the Thoughts on ZFS Pool Backup Strategies thread it was stated that zfs
send, sends uncompress data and uses the ARC.
If zfs send sends uncompress data which has already been compress this is
not very efficient, and it would be *nice* to
This assumes that you have the storage to replicate or at least restore all
data to a DR site. While this is another way to do it, it is not really cost
effective in our situation.
What I am thinking is basically having 2 servers. One has the zpool attached
and sharing out our data. The other
I think I would do 3xraidz3 with 8 disks and 0 hotspares.
That way you have a better chance of resolving bit rot issues that might become
apparent during a rebuild.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Thu, March 25, 2010 10:20, Wolfraider wrote:
What I am thinking is basically having 2 servers. One has the zpool
attached and sharing out our data. The other is a cold spare. The zpool is
stored on 3 JBOD chassis attached with Fibrechannel. I would like to
export the config at specific
Awsome, glad to hear that you got it figured out. :)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Mar 25, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Wolfraider wrote:
This assumes that you have the storage to replicate or at least restore all
data to a DR site. While this is another way to do it, it is not really cost
effective in our situation.
If the primary and DR site aren't compatible, then it won't be
On Mar 25, 2010, at 7:20 AM, Wolfraider wrote:
This assumes that you have the storage to replicate
or at least restore all data to a DR site. While this
is another way to do it, it is not really cost
effective in our situation.
If the primary and DR site aren't compatible, then it
won't
Damon Atkins wrote:
NFSv4 has a concept of a root of the overall exported filesystem
(Pseudofilesystem).
FileHandle 0 in terms of Linux it is setting fsid=0 when exporting.
Which would explain why someone said Linux (NFSv4) automounts an exported
filesystem under another exported filesystem
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com wrote:
Assuming a system with 24 disks available , having in mind reliability as
the crucial factor , secondary the usable space and finally performance
would be the last criteria, what would be the preferable configuration ?
On Thu, March 25, 2010 11:28, Wolfraider wrote:
Which, when I asked the question, I wasn't sure how it all worked. I
didn't know if the import process need a config file or not. I am learning
alot, very quickly. We will be looking into the HA cluster in the future.
The spare is a cold spare
Wither it is efficient or not to send the compressed or uncompressed
data depends on a lot of factors.
If the data is already in the ARC for some other reason then it is
likely much more efficient to use that because sending the compressed
blocks involves doing IO to disk. Reading the
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:23:38PM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
If the data is in the L2ARC that is still better than going out to
the main pool disks to get the compressed version.
advocate customer='devil'
Well, one could just compress it... If you'd otherwise put compression
in the ssh
We are sharing the LUNS out with Comstar from 1 big pool. In essence, we
created our own low cost SAN. We currently have our windows clients connected
with Fibrechannel to the COMSTAR target.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss
Hi All,
On behalf of NexentaStor team, I'm happy to announce the release of
NexentaStor Community Edition 3.0. This release is the result of the
community efforts of Nexenta Partners and users.
With the addition of many new features, NexentaStor CE is the *most
complete*, and feature-rich gratis
We have a Silicon Mechanics server with a SuperMicro X8DT3-F (Rev 1.02)
(onboard LSI 1068E (firmware 1.28.02.00) and a SuperMicro SAS-846EL1
(Rev 1.1) backplane.
We have four Intel X-25E's attached to the backplane with two acting as
ZIL and two as L2ARC.
The remaining 21 drives are 1TB SATA.
On Mar 25, 2010, at 8:28 AM, Wolfraider wrote:
Which, when I asked the question, I wasn't sure how it all worked. I didn't
know if the import process need a config file or not. I am learning alot,
very quickly. We will be looking into the HA cluster in the future. The spare
is a cold spare
Hi,
What do you mean by Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the
purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode ?
Does it means that having 2 vdevs with 3 disks it won't be redundant in
the advent of a drive failure?
Indeed it may be too many spares...the discussion here
On 25-3-2010 15:28, Richard Jahnel wrote:
I think I would do 3xraidz3 with 8 disks and 0 hotspares.
That way you have a better chance of resolving bit rot issues that might
become apparent during a rebuild.
Indeed raidz3...i didn't consider it.
In short, a raidz3 could sustain 3 broken
rvandol...@esri.com said:
We have a Silicon Mechanics server with a SuperMicro X8DT3-F (Rev 1.02)
(onboard LSI 1068E (firmware 1.28.02.00) and a SuperMicro SAS-846EL1 (Rev
1.1) backplane.
. . .
The system is fully patched Solaris 10 U8, and the mpt driver is
version 1.92:
Since you're
Bruno Sousa wrote:
What do you mean by Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the
purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode ?
Does it means that having 2 vdevs with 3 disks it won't be redundant in
the advent of a drive failure?
Technically a 3 disk raidz2 won't be
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:51:25AM -0700, Marion Hakanson wrote:
rvandol...@esri.com said:
We have a Silicon Mechanics server with a SuperMicro X8DT3-F (Rev 1.02)
(onboard LSI 1068E (firmware 1.28.02.00) and a SuperMicro SAS-846EL1 (Rev
1.1) backplane.
. . .
The system is fully patched
Well the thing I like about raidz3 is that even with 1 drive out you have 3
copies of all the blocks. So if you encounter bit rot, not only can checksums
be used to find the good data, you can still get a best 2 out of 3 vote on
which data is correct.
As to performance, all I can say is test
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com wrote:
What do you mean by Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the
purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode ? Does it means
that having 2 vdevs with 3 disks it won't be redundant in the advent of a
Hmm...it might be completely wrong , but the idea of raidz2 vdev with 3
disks came from the reading of
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gcvjg?a=view .
This particular page has the following example :
*zpool create tank raidz2 c1t0d0 c2t0d0 c3t0d0*
# *zpool status -v tank*
pool: tank
Hi All,
OK, I have 3Ware looking into a driver for my cards (3ware 9500S-8) as I dont
see an OpenSolaris driver for them.
But this leads me that they do have a FreeBSD Driver, so I could still use ZFS.
What does everyone thing about that? I bet it is not as mature as on
OpenSolaris.
Does
On Mar 25, 2010, at 22:10, Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com
wrote:
What do you mean by Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats
the purpose of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode ?
Does it means that
On Mar 25, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com wrote:
What do you mean by Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the purpose
of raidz2, as you will always be in a degraded mode ? Does it means that
having 2 vdevs
Hi all,
The more readings i do about ZFS, and experiments the more i like this
stack of technologies.
Since we all like to see real figures in real environments , i might as
well share some of my numbers ..
The replication has been achieved with the zfs send / zfs receive but
piped with mbuffer
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mar 25, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Bruno Sousa bso...@epinfante.com
wrote:
What do you mean by Using fewer than 4 disks in a raidz2 defeats the
purpose of
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Slack-Moehrle
mailingli...@mailnewsrss.com wrote:
OK, I have 3Ware looking into a driver for my cards (3ware 9500S-8) as I
dont see an OpenSolaris driver for them.
But this leads me that they do have a FreeBSD Driver, so I could still use
ZFS.
What does
Freddie Cash wrote:
So, is it just a standard that hardware/software RAID setups require 3
drives for a RAID5 array? And 4 drives for RAID6?
It's padding on the sharp edges. See my earlier post - a 2 disk RAID5 is
silly, use a mirror. A 3 disk RAID6 is silly, use a 3-way mirror. Both
are
Thanks for the tip..btw is there any advantage with jbod vs simple volumes?
Bruno
On 25-3-2010 21:08, Richard Jahnel wrote:
BTW, if you download the solaris drivers for the 52445 from adaptec, you can
use jbod instead of simple volumes.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic
On 03/26/10 08:47 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote:
Hi all,
The more readings i do about ZFS, and experiments the more i like this
stack of technologies.
Since we all like to see real figures in real environments , i might
as well share some of my numbers ..
The replication has been achieved with the
Hi,
Indeed the 3 disks per vdev (raidz2) seems a bad idea...but it's the
system i have now.
Regarding the performance...let's assume that a bonnie++ benchmark could
go to 200 mg/s in. The possibility of getting the same values (or near)
in a zfs send / zfs receive is just a matter of putting ,
I'm sorry if this is not the appropriate place to ask, but I'm a student and
for an assignment I need to be able to show at the hex level how files and
their attributes are stored and referenced in ZFS. Are there any resources
available that will show me how this is done?
--
This message
On 03/26/10 10:00 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote:
[Boy top-posting sure mucks up threads!]
Hi,
Indeed the 3 disks per vdev (raidz2) seems a bad idea...but it's the
system i have now.
Regarding the performance...let's assume that a bonnie++ benchmark
could go to 200 mg/s in. The possibility of
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Robert Thurlow robert.thur...@sun.comwrote:
Linux has had it for a longer time. Is this not what you
see on current Linux?
All of my linux clients are using nfs3. CentOS 5 had trouble with nfs4, and
the ancient version of debian I'm running doesn't support
I have two storages, both on snv133. Both filled with 1TB drives.
1) stripe over two raidz vdevs, 7 disks in each. In total avalable size is
(7-1)*2=12TB
2) zfs pool over HW raid, also 12TB.
Both storages keeps the same data with minor differences. First pool keeps 24
hourly snapshots + 7 daily
Just to make it a bit more clear
this is first pool
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
export ONLINE 0 0 0
raidz1-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c5t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c5t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
John,
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 02:45:12PM -0700, John Bonomi wrote:
I'm sorry if this is not the appropriate place to ask, but I'm a student and
for an assignment I need to be able to show at the hex level how files and
their attributes are stored and referenced in ZFS. Are there any
63 matches
Mail list logo
