Did you ever figure this out?
I have the same hardware: Intel DG33TL motherboard with Intel gigabit nic and
ICH9R but with Hitachi 1TB drives.
I'm getting 2MB/s write speeds.
I've tried the zeroing out trick. No luck.
Network is fine. Disks are fine, the write at around 50MB/s when formatted
Oh, Jeff's write script gives around 60MB/s IIRC.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I used BCwipe to zero the drives. How do you:
boot Knoppix again and zero out the start and end sectors manually (erasing all
GPT data)
??
thanks
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hi,
First of all, my apologies for some of my posts appearing 2 or even 3 times
here, the forum seems to be acting up, and although I received a Java exception
for those double postings and they never appeared yesterday, apparently they
still made it through eventually.
Back on topic: I
Pascal Vandeputte pascal_vdp at hotmail.com writes:
I'm at a loss, I'm thinking about just settling for the 20MB/s write
speeds with a 3-drive raidz and enjoy life...
As Richard Elling pointed out, the ~10ms per IO operation implies
seeking, or hardware/firmware problems. The mere fact you
Thanks, I'll try installing Solaris on a 1GB CF card in an CF-to-IDE adapter,
so all disks will then be completely available to ZFS. Then I needn't worry
about different size block devices either.
I also find it weird that the boot disk is displayed differently from the other
two disks if I
(the lt and gt symbols are filtered by the forum I guess; replaced with minus
signs now)
# format
Searching for disks...done
AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS:
0. c1t0d0 -DEFAULT cyl 45597 alt 2 hd 255 sec 126-
/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci8086,[EMAIL PROTECTED],2/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0
Great, superb write speeds with a similar setup, my motivation is growing again
;-)
It just occurs to me that I have a spare Silicon Image 3124 SATA card lying
around. I was postponing testing of these drives on my desktop because it has
an Intel ICH9 SATA controller probably quite similar to
Thanks a lot for your input, I understand those numbers a lot better now! I'll
look deeper into hardware issues. It's a pity that I can't get older BIOS
versions flashed. But I've got some other hardware lying around.
Someone suggested lowering the 35 iops default, but I can't find any
Pascal Vandeputte wrote:
Thanks a lot for your input, I understand those numbers a lot better now!
I'll look deeper into hardware issues. It's a pity that I can't get older
BIOS versions flashed. But I've got some other hardware lying around.
Someone suggested lowering the 35 iops default,
Pascal Vandeputte wrote:
I see. I'll only be running a minimal Solaris install with ZFS and samba on
this machine, so I wouldn't expect immediate memory issues with 2 gigabytes
of RAM. OTOH I read that ZFS is a real memory hog so I'll be careful.
Memory usage is completely dependent on
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Richard Elling wrote:
Don't worry about swapping on CF. In most cases, you won't be
using the swap device for normal operations. You can use the
swap -l command to observe the swap device usage. No usage
means that you can probably do away
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28:45AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
I don't agree that if swap is used that performance will necessarily
suck. If swap is available, Solaris will mount /tmp there, which
helps temporary file performance. It is best to look at system
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008, A Darren Dunham wrote:
I think these paragraphs are referring to two different concepts with
swap. Swapfiles or backing store in the first, and virtual memory
space in the second.
The swap area is mis-named since Solaris never swaps. Some older
operating systems would
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008, A Darren Dunham wrote:
I think these paragraphs are referring to two different concepts with
swap. Swapfiles or backing store in the first, and virtual memory
space in the second.
The swap area is mis-named since Solaris never swaps. Some older
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, michael schuster wrote:
that's true most of the time ... unless free memory gets *really* low, then
Solaris *does* start to swap (ie page out pages by process). IIRC, the
threshold for swapping is minfree (measured in pages), and the value that
needs to fall below this
Thanks for all the replies!
Some output from iostat -x 1 while doing a dd of /dev/zero to a file on a
raidz of c1t0d0s3, c1t1d0 and c1t2d0 using bs=1048576:
extended device statistics
devicer/sw/s kr/s kw/s wait actv svc_t %w %b
sd0 0.0
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Pascal Vandeputte wrote:
Thanks for all the replies!
Some output from iostat -x 1 while doing a dd of /dev/zero to a
file on a raidz of c1t0d0s3, c1t1d0 and c1t2d0 using bs=1048576:
[ data removed ]
It's all a little fishy, and kw/s doesn't differ much between the
Hi,
Thanks for your input. Unfortunately, all 3 drives are identical Seagate
7200.11 drives which I bought separately and they are attached in no particular
order.
Thanks about the /dev/zero remark, I didn't know that.
From what I've seen this afternoon, I'm starting to suspect a
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Pascal Vandeputte wrote:
- does Solaris require a swap space on disk
No, Solaris does not require a swap space. However you do not have a
lot of memory so when there is not enough virtual memory available,
programs will fail to allocate memory and quit running. There is
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Pascal Vandeputte wrote:
Thanks for all the replies!
Some output from iostat -x 1 while doing a dd of /dev/zero to a
file on a raidz of c1t0d0s3, c1t1d0 and c1t2d0 using bs=1048576:
[
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Tim wrote:
Along those lines, I'd *strongly* suggest running Jeff's script to pin down
whether one drive is the culprit:
But that script only tests read speed and Pascal's read performance
seems fine.
Bob
==
Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL
22 matches
Mail list logo
