Re: [zfs-discuss] Maximum zfs send/receive throughput

2010-11-13 Thread Karsten Weiss
Does this maybe ring a bell with someone? Update: The cause of the problem was OpenSolaris bug 6826836 Deadlock possible in dmu_object_reclaim() http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6826836 It could be fixed by upgrading the OpenSolaris 2009.06 system to 0.5.11-0.111.17

Re: [zfs-discuss] Maximum zfs send/receive throughput

2010-11-10 Thread Karsten Weiss
I'm not very familar with mdb. I've tried this: Ah, this looks much better: root 641 0.0 0.0 7660 2624 ?S Nov 08 2:16 /sbin/zfs receive -dF datapool/share/ (...) # echo 0t641::pid2proc|::walk thread|::findstack -v | mdb -k stack pointer for thread ff09236198e0:

Re: [zfs-discuss] Maximum zfs send/receive throughput

2010-11-08 Thread Karsten Weiss
Does anyone know the current state of bug #6975124? Has there been any progress since August? I currently have an OpenSolaris 2009.06 snv_111b system (entire 0.5.11-0.111.14) which *repeatedly* gets stuck after a couple of minutes during a large (xxx GB) incremental zfs receive operation. The

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20 numbers

2010-03-31 Thread Karsten Weiss
I stand corrected. You don't lose your pool. You don't have corrupted filesystem. But you lose whatever writes were not yet completed, so if those writes happen to be things like database transactions, you could have corrupted databases or files, or missing files if you were creating them

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20 numbers

2010-03-31 Thread Karsten Weiss
Hi Adam, Very interesting data. Your test is inherently single-threaded so I'm not surprised that the benefits aren't more impressive -- the flash modules on the F20 card are optimized more for concurrent IOPS than single-threaded latency. Thanks for your reply. I'll probably test the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20 numbers

2010-03-31 Thread Karsten Weiss
Nobody knows any way for me to remove my unmirrored log device. Nobody knows any way for me to add a mirror to it (until Since snv_125 you can remove log devices. See http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6574286 I've used this all the time during my testing and was able to remove

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20 numbers

2010-03-31 Thread Karsten Weiss
Hi Jeroen, Adam! link. Switched write caching off with the following addition to the /kernel/drv/sd.conf file (Karsten: if you didn't do this already, you _really_ want to :) Okay, I bite! :) format-inquiry on the F20 FMods disks returns: # Vendor: ATA # Product: MARVELL SD88SA02 So I

[zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20 numbers

2010-03-30 Thread Karsten Weiss
Hi, I did some tests on a Sun Fire x4540 with an external J4500 array (connected via two HBA ports). I.e. there are 96 disks in total configured as seven 12-disk raidz2 vdevs (plus system, spares, unused disks) providing a ~ 63 TB pool with fletcher4 checksums. The system was recently equipped