On 09/14/12 22:39, Edward Ned Harvey
(opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Dave Pooser
Unfortunately I did not realize that zvols require disk space sufficient
to duplicate the zvol, and
On 07/19/12 18:24, Traffanstead, Mike wrote:
iozone doesn't vary the blocksize during the test, it's a very
artificial test but it's useful for gauging performance under
different scenarios.
So for this test all of the writes would have been 64k blocks, 128k,
etc. for that particular step.
On 07/11/12 02:10, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
Oh jeez, I can't remember how many times this flame war has been going
on on this list. Here's the gist: SHA-256 (or any good hash) produces a
near uniform random distribution of output. Thus, the chances of getting
a random hash collision are around
as you're thinking about
how to proceed:
https://blogs.oracle.com/wdp/entry/comstar_iscsi
- Bill
--
Bill Pijewski, Joyent http://dtrace.org/blogs/wdp/
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman
On 05/28/12 17:13, Daniel Carosone wrote:
There are two problems using ZFS on drives with 4k sectors:
1) if the drive lies and presents 512-byte sectors, and you don't
manually force ashift=12, then the emulation can be slow (and
possibly error prone). There is essentially an
then interrupt it).
should show who's calling list_next() so much.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
and its last snapshot.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
.
True but I haven't found a way to get an ISO onto a USB that my system can
boot from it. I was using DD to copy the iso to the usb drive. Is there some
other way?
Maybe give http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/ a try.
Bill
This is really frustrating. I haven't had any problems
On 06/27/11 15:24, David Magda wrote:
Given the amount of transistors that are available nowadays I think
it'd be simpler to just create a series of SIMD instructions right
in/on general CPUs, and skip the whole co-processor angle.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set
Present
.
if you're using dedup, you need a large read cache even if you're only
doing application-layer writes, because you need fast random read access
to the dedup tables while you write.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing
of raidz, know precisely how it's spread and encoded across the
members of the vdev). And it's reading all the data blocks needed to
reconstruct the disk to be replaced.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On 06/08/11 01:05, Tomas Ögren wrote:
And if pool usage is90%, then there's another problem (change of
finding free space algorithm).
Another (less satisfying) workaround is to increase the amount of free
space in the pool, either by reducing usage or adding more storage.
Observed behavior
On 06/06/11 08:07, Cyril Plisko wrote:
zpool reports space usage on disks, without taking into account RAIDZ overhead.
zfs reports net capacity available, after RAIDZ overhead accounted for.
Yup. Going back to the original numbers:
nebol@filez:/$ zfs list tank2
NAMEUSED AVAIL REFER
I'm migrating some filesystems from UFS to ZFS and I'm not sure how to create a
couple of them.
I want to migrate /, /var, /opt, /export/home and also want swap and /tmp. I
don't care about any of the others.
The first disk, and the one with the UFS filesystems, is c0t0d0 and the 2nd
disk is
-disk mirror.
I used an 80G intel X25-M, with 1G for zil, with the rest split roughly
50:50 between root pool and l2arc for the data pool.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
realized what was happening and was able to kill the process.
Bill Rushmore
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
physical controllers).
see stmsboot(1m) for information on how to turn that off if you don't
need multipathing and don't like the longer device names.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss
In the last few days my performance has gone to hell. I'm running:
# uname -a
SunOS nissan 5.11 snv_150 i86pc i386 i86pc
(I'll upgrade as soon as the desktop hang bug is fixed.)
The performance problems seem to be due to excessive I/O on the main
disk/pool.
The only things I've changed
One of my old pools was version 10, another was version 13.
I guess that explains the problem.
Seems like time-sliderd should refuse to run on pools that
aren't of a sufficient version.
Cindy Swearingen wrote on 02/18/11 12:07 PM:
Hi Bill,
I think the root cause of this problem is that time
to something
faster/better/..., then after the mirror completes zpool detach to free
up the removable storage.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman
to be durable,
why does it matter that it may buffer data while it is doing so?
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 02/07/11 12:49, Yi Zhang wrote:
If buffering is on, the running time of my app doesn't reflect the
actual I/O cost. My goal is to accurately measure the time of I/O.
With buffering on, ZFS would batch up a bunch of writes and change
both the original I/O activity and the time.
if batching
it yourself
with the format command and ZFS won't disable it.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Understood Edward, and if this was a production data center, I wouldn't be
doing it this way. This is for my home lab, so spending hundreds of dollars on
SSD devices isn't practical.
Can several datasets share a single ZIL and a single L2ARC, or much must each
dataset have their own?
--
This
got it attached to a UPS with very conservative
shut-down timing. Or
are there other host failures aside from power a
ZIL would be
vulnerable too (system hard-locks?)?
Correct, a system hard-lock is another example...
How about comparing a non-battery backed ZIL to running a ZFS
60GB SSD drives using the SF 1222 controller can be had now for around $100.
I know ZFS likes to use the entire disk to do it's magic, but under X86, is
the entire disk the entire disk, or is it one physical X86 partition?
In the past I have created 2 partitions with FDISK, but format will
,
it's very likely that he got it right, but in crypto, all the details
matter and if a spec detailed enough to allow for interoperability isn't
available, it's safest to assume that some of the details are wrong.
- Bill
So when I built my new workstation last year, I partitioned the one and only
disk in half, 50% for Windows, 50% for 2009.06. Now, I'm not using Windows,
so I'd like to use the other half for another ZFS pool, but I can't figure out
how to access it.
I have used fdisk to create a second
copy the blocks that change, and receiving an incremental send does
the same).
And if the destination pool is short on space you may end up more
fragmented than the source.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On 08/21/10 10:14, Ross Walker wrote:
I am trying to figure out the best way to provide both performance and
resiliency given the Equallogic provides the redundancy.
(I have no specific experience with Equallogic; the following is just
generic advice)
Every bit stored in zfs is checksummed
snapshots. Turning off atime updates (if you and your
applications can cope with this) may also help going forward.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo
with the results.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
=0x1000
* Work around 6965294
set zfs:metaslab_smo_bonus_pct=0xc8
-cut here-
no guarantees, but it's helped a few systems..
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
=0x1000
* Work around 6965294
set zfs:metaslab_smo_bonus_pct=0xc8
-cut here-
no guarantees, but it's helped a few systems..
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
-duplicate: 432759 entries, size 304 on disk, 156 in core
DDT-sha256-zap-unique: 1094244 entries, size 298 on disk, 151 in core
dedup = 1.25, compress = 1.44, copies = 1.00, dedup * compress / copies
= 1.80
- Bill
[1] To forestall responses of the form
-second value.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
the other thing that's
supposed to be cleared up. This worked back on a 20081207 build, so perhaps
something has changed?
I'm adding format's view of the disks and a zdb list below.
Thanks,
-Bill
r...@nexenta_safemode:~# format
Searching for disks
case is very compelling - I
know lots of SOHO folks who could really use a NAS where this 'just worked'
The ZFS team has done well by thinking liberally about conventional
assumptions.
-Bill
--
Bill McGonigle, Owner
BFC Computing, LLC
http://bfccomputing.com/
Telephone: +1.603.448.4440
Email
about double what I usually get out of a cheap 'desktop' SATA
drive with OpenSolaris. Slower than a RAID-Z2 of 10 of them, though.
Still, the power savings could be appreciable.
-Bill
--
Bill McGonigle, Owner
BFC Computing, LLC
http://bfccomputing.com/
Telephone: +1.603.448.4440
Email, IM
device get cached).
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
is somewhat more likely.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
to add
an autopm enable if the system isn't recognized as a known desktop.
the disks spin down when the system is idle; there's a delay of a few
seconds when they spin back up.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing
your system to crash and reboot; if the failure also causes loss
of the write cache contents on both sides of the mirror, mirroring won't
help.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
).
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
can try adding more ram to the system.
Adding a flash-based ssd as an cache/L2ARC device is also very
effective; random i/o to ssd is much faster than random i/o to spinning
rust.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss
that the underlying storage devices
themselves are increasingly using copy-on-write techniques.
The most paranoid will replace all the disks and then physically destroy
the old ones.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing
only changes
the size of the problem we need to solve.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
the space, 1GB in s3 for slog, and the rest of the space as
L2ARC in s4. That may actually be overly generous for the root pool,
but I run with copies=2 on rpool/ROOT and I tend to keep a bunch of BE's
around.
- Bill
like atime
updates, mtime updates on pseudo-terminals, etc., ?
I'd want to start looking more closely at I/O traces (dtrace can be very
helpful here) before blaming any specific system component for the
unexpected I/O.
- Bill
for the better).
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 03/19/10 19:07, zfs ml wrote:
What are peoples' experiences with multiple drive failures?
1985-1986. DEC RA81 disks. Bad glue that degraded at the disk's
operating temperature. Head crashes. No more need be said.
- Bill
75 hours which had claimed to be 100.00% done for over a day.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 03/08/10 12:43, Tomas Ögren wrote:
So we tried adding 2x 4GB USB sticks (Kingston Data
Traveller Mini Slim) as metadata L2ARC and that seems to have pushed the
snapshot times down to about 30 seconds.
Out of curiosity, how much physical memory does this system have?
and checksum metadata.
the evil tuning guide describes an unstable interface to turn off
metadata compression, but I don't see anything in there for metadata
checksums.
if you have an actual need for an in-memory filesystem, will tmpfs fit
the bill
on these systems. (when
migrating one such system from Nevada to Opensolaris recently I forgot
to add swap to /etc/vfstab).
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org
to continue to
use it?
While we're designing on the fly: Another possibility would be to use an
additional umask bit or two to influence the mode-bit - acl interaction.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing
blocks can read lzjb-compressed blocks in zfs.
I have compression=on (and copies=2) for both sparc and x86 roots; I'm
told that grub's zfs support also knows how to fall back to ditto blocks
if the first copy fails to be readable or has a bad checksum.
- Bill
be able to read every bit of the file.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
build 130, which
is mostly the same)
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
tunables for ZFS which allow the
system to escape the confines of POSIX (noatime, for one); I don't see
why a chmod doesn't truncate acls option couldn't join it so long as
it was off by default and left off while conformance tests were run.
- Bill
it.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
experience with both systems, AFS had it more or less right and
POSIX got it more or less wrong -- once you step into the world of acls,
the file mode should be mostly ignored, and an accidental chmod should
*not* destroy carefully crafted acls.
- Bill
On 02/12/10 09:36, Felix Buenemann wrote:
given I've got ~300GB L2ARC, I'd
need about 7.2GB RAM, so upgrading to 8GB would be enough to satisfy the
L2ARC.
But that would only leave ~800MB free for everything else the server
needs to do.
- Bill
.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 02/06/10 08:38, Frank Middleton wrote:
AFAIK there is no way to get around this. You can set a flag so that pkg
tries to empty /var/pkg/downloads, but even though it looks empty, it
won't actually become empty until you delete the snapshots, and IIRC
you still have to manually delete the
.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
.
If you want to allow for overcommit, you need to delete the refreservation.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
won't hit the SSD
unless the system is short on physical memory.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Thanks for this thread! I was just coming here to discuss this very same
problem. I'm running 2009.06 on a Q6600 with 8GB of RAM. I have a Windows
system writing multiple OTA HD video streams via CIFS to the 2009.06 system
running Samba.
I then have multiple clients reading back other HD
Hi Richard,
How's the ranch? ;-)
This is most likely a naive question on my part. If recordsize is
set to 4k (or a multiple of 4k), will ZFS ever write a record that
is less than 4k or not a multiple of 4k?
Yes. The recordsize is the upper limit for a file record.
This includes
On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:24 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 17:28 -0800, Bill Sprouse wrote:
After
running for a while (couple of months) the zpool seems to get
fragmented, backups take 72 hours and a scrub takes about 180
hours.
Are there periodic snapshots being created
Hi Bob,
On Dec 15, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Bill Sprouse wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I hope this is the right forum for this question. A customer is
using a Thumper as an NFS file server to provide the mail store for
multiple email servers (Dovecot
Thanks MIchael,
Useful stuff to try. I wish we could add more memory, but the x4500
is limited to 16GB. Compression was a question. Its currently off,
but they were thinking of turning it on.
bill
On Dec 15, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Michael Herf wrote:
I have also had slow scrubbing
This is most likely a naive question on my part. If recordsize is set
to 4k (or a multiple of 4k), will ZFS ever write a record that is less
than 4k or not a multiple of 4k? This includes metadata. Does
compression have any effect on this?
thanks for the help,
bill
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 17:28 -0800, Bill Sprouse wrote:
After
running for a while (couple of months) the zpool seems to get
fragmented, backups take 72 hours and a scrub takes about 180
hours.
Are there periodic snapshots being created in this pool?
Can they run with atime turned off
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 13:49 -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
sh == Seth Heeren s...@zfs-fuse.net writes:
sh If you don't want/need log or cache, disable these? You might
sh want to run your ZIL (slog) on ramdisk.
seems quite silly. why would you do that instead of just disabling
the
to clear this up...?
Thanks for your time,
-Bill
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
version of the fix, and saw one pool go from an elapsed
time of 85 hours to 20 hours; another (with many fewer snapshots) went
from 35 to 17.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
).
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 13:51 -0400, Will Murnane wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 13:06, Will Murnane will.murn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 21:29, Bill Sommerfeld sommerf...@sun.com wrote:
Any suggestions?
Let it run for another day.
I'll let it keep running as long
of the file.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
zfs groups writes together into transaction groups; the physical writes
to disk are generally initiated by kernel threads (which appear in
dtrace as threads of the sched process). Changing the attribution is
not going to be simple as a single physical write to the pool may
contain data and
On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 10:24 -0700, Brian wrote:
Why does resilvering an entire disk, yield different amounts of data that was
resilvered each time.
I have read that ZFS only resilvers what it needs to, but in the case of
replacing an entire disk with another formatted clean disk, you would
On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 14:39 -0600, Lori Alt wrote:
The list of datasets in a root pool should look something like this:
...
rpool/swap
I've had success with putting swap into other pools. I believe others
have, as well.
- Bill
.
here are some bugs that, if fixed, might help:
6678033 resilver code should prefetch
6730737 investigate colocating directory dnodes
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
reporting 100.00% done, 0h0m to go at about the 50-60
hour point.
I suspect the combination of frequent time-based snapshots and a pretty
active set of users causes the progress estimate to be off..
- Bill
corruption over the years.
Most of your data, most of the time, it would seem.
--Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
or 64-bit mode. you can use the isainfo command to tell if
amd64 is available.
on i386, we always build both 32-bit and 64-bit kernel modules; the
bootloader will figure out which kernel to load.
- Bill
I can confirm that it is fixed in 121430-37, too.
Bill
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
, and you get a
bigger number than its size in the natural-for-software 2^(10n)-sized
units.
So it's obvious which numbers end up on the marketing glossies, and it's
all downhill from there...
- Bill
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 06:06 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
Nevertheless, in my lab testing, I was not able to create a random-enough
workload to not be write limited on the reconstructing drive. Anecdotal
evidence shows that some systems are limited by the random reads.
Systems I've run which
all.
aka:
zfs set primarycache=metadata rpool/swap
seems like that would be more likely to behave appropriately.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
the right administrative interface for this is for zpool to allow
you to add the same device to a pool as both cache and ssd, and let zfs
figure out how to not step on itself when allocating blocks.
- Bill
___
zfs
: 3169:1dea14abfe17
user:phitran
date:Sat Nov 25 11:05:17 2006 -0800
files: usr/src/uts/common/io/scsi/targets/sd.c
6424510 usb ignores DKIOCFLUSHWRITECACHE
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing
figure out what policy makes sense for your system or site.
- Bill
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
If you want a small system that is pre-built, look at
every possible
permutation/combination of the Dell Vostro 200 box.
I agree, the Vostro 200 systems are an excellent deal. Update to the latest
BIOS and they will recognize 8GB of RAM.
The ONE problem with them, is that Dell does not
I upgraded my machine to snv_101a_rc1 and now that machine is broken.
I described my problem here
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=81928tstart=0
and here
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=80625tstart=0#304281
The problem seems to be some low level zfs
Running zdb on my broken system, one of the things I see is the hostname.
I'm not sure why zfs needs to know about the hostname of the system it's
on, but...
The thing I did that started all my problems was I changed the hostname
of my system. Do I need to do something with zfs to tell it the
recordsize directly at create time would bypass this sort of gyration).
(Apparently the sqlite file format uses 16-bit within-page offsets; 32kb
is its current maximum page size and 64k may be as large as it can go
without significant renovations..)
- Bill
On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 10:45 -0600, Neil Perrin wrote:
Yes: 6280630 zil synchronicity
Though personally I've been unhappy with the exposure that zil_disable has
got.
It was originally meant for debug purposes only. So providing an official
way to make synchronous behaviour asynchronous is
1 - 100 of 296 matches
Mail list logo
