Re: [zfs-discuss] fchmod(2) returns ENOSPC on ZFS
Matthew Ahrens wrote: In a COW filesystem such as ZFS, it will sometimes be necessary to return ENOSPC in cases such as chmod(2) which previously did not. This is because there could be a snapshot, so overwriting some information actually requires a net increase in space used. That said, we may be generating this ENOSPC in cases where it is not strictly necessary (eg, when there are no snapshots). We're working on some of these cases. Can you show us the output of 'zfs list' when the ENOSPC occurs? Is there a bug id for this? Regards, Manoj ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] fchmod(2) returns ENOSPC on ZFS
Manoj Joseph wrote: Matthew Ahrens wrote: In a COW filesystem such as ZFS, it will sometimes be necessary to return ENOSPC in cases such as chmod(2) which previously did not. This is because there could be a snapshot, so overwriting some information actually requires a net increase in space used. That said, we may be generating this ENOSPC in cases where it is not strictly necessary (eg, when there are no snapshots). We're working on some of these cases. Can you show us the output of 'zfs list' when the ENOSPC occurs? Is there a bug id for this? Can you search for ENOSPC in solaris/kernel/zfs? (That's product/category/subcat. I don't know how the external bug interface works.) Or check out 6362156 and 6453407. --matt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Karma Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
As I understand matters, from my notes to design the perfect home NAS server :-) 1) you want to give ZFS entire spindles if at all possible; that will mean it can enable and utilise the drive's hardware write cache properly, leading to a performance boost. You want to do this if you can. Alas it knocks out the split all disks into 7 493Gb partitions design concept. 2) I've considered pivot-root solutions based around a USB stick or drive; cute, but I want a single tower box and no dongles 3) This leads me to the following design points: - enormous tower case with 10+ bays - HE/high-efficency mobo with 8+ SATA capability - crank down the CPU, big fans, etc... quiet - 1x [small/cheap]Gb Drive @ 1+rpm for root / swap / alternate boot environments - 4x 750Gb SATA @ 7200rpm for full-spindle RAID-Z - populate the spare SATA ports when 1Tb disks hit the price point; make a separate RAIDZ and drop *that* into the existing pool. This - curiously - echoes the Unixes of my youth (and earlier!) where root was a small fast disk for swapping and access to key utilities which were used frequently (hence /bin and /lib) - whereas usr was a bigger, slower, cheaper disk, where the less frequently-used stuff was stored (/usr/bin, home directories, etc)... Funny how the karmic wheel turns; I was suffering from the above architecture until the early 1990s - arguably we still suffer from it today, watch Perl building some time - and now I am redesigning the same thing but at least now the whole OS squeezes into the small disk pretty easily. :-) As an aside there is nothing wrong with using ZFS - eg: a zvol - as a swap device; but just as you say, if we use real disks for root then they will be so big that there's probably no point in pushing swap off to ZFS. -a -- Alec Muffett http://www.google.com/search?q=alec-muffett ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS wastesd diskspace?
Tsk, turns out Mysql was holding on to some old files.. Thanks Daniel! This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?
Ed Ravin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 15 years ago, Novell Netware started to return a fixed size of 512 for all directories via NFS. If there is still unfixed code, there is no help. The Novell behavior, commendable as it is, did not break the BSD scandir() code, because BSD scandir() fails in the other direction, when st_size is a low number, like less than 24. This is wrong: If you use such a Novell server, you only see the first 21 entries of a directory. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
I definitely [i]don't[/i] want to use flash for swap... You could use a ZVOL on the RAID-Z. Ok, not the most efficient thing, but there's no sort of flag to disable parity on a specific object. I wish there was, exactly for this reason. -mg signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: zfs reports small st_size for directories?
On 14 June, 2007 - Bill Sommerfeld sent me these 0,6K bytes:
On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:09 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The implication of which, of course, is that any app build for Solaris 9
or before which uses scandir may have picked up a broken one.
or any app which includes its own copy of the BSD scandir code, possibly
under a different name, because not all systems support scandir..
it can be impossible to fix all copies of a bug which has been cut
pasted too many times...
Such stuff does exist out in the world..
http://www.google.com/codesearch?hl=enlr=q=scandir.c+st_size+24btnG=Search
/Tomas
--
Tomas Ögren, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {cs,acc}.umu.se
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Boot manual setup in b65
No. There is nothing else the OS can do when it cannot mount the root filesystem. I have the impression (didn't check though) that the pool is made available by just setting some information in its main superblock or something alike (sorry for the imprecisions in ZFS jargon). I understand the OS knows which pool/fs it wants to mount onto /. It also knows that the root filesystem is ZFS, so it could in theory be able to import the pool at boot, I suppose. So I wonder if the OS could prompt the user on the console to import the pool or even use some (additional) boot options to instruct it to either import the pool without asking or reboot without panicking (e.g. -B auto-import-exported-root-pool=true/false). I guess this would be an RFE rather than a bug. Any thoughts on it? That being said, it should have a nicer message (using FMA-style knowledge articles) that tell you what's actually going wrong. There is already a bug filed against this failure mode. Off-topic question, but I cannot resist. What is FMA-style knowledge articles? -- Douglas This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: Karma Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
Alec Muffett wrote: As I understand matters, from my notes to design the perfect home NAS server :-) 1) you want to give ZFS entire spindles if at all possible; that will mean it can enable and utilise the drive's hardware write cache properly, leading to a performance boost. You want to do this if you can. Alas it knocks out the split all disks into 7 493Gb partitions design concept. 2) I've considered pivot-root solutions based around a USB stick or drive; cute, but I want a single tower box and no dongles 3) This leads me to the following design points: - enormous tower case with 10+ bays A good alternative is a smaller case with 6 bays and two 5 way SuperMicro cages. Better for space and drive cooling. Ian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs and EMC
Hi there, have a strange behavior if i´ll create a zfs pool at an EMC PowerPath pseudo device. I can create a pool on emcpower0a but not on emcpower2a zpool core dumps with invalid argument Thats my second maschine with powerpath and zfs the first one works fine, even zfs/powerpath and failover ... Is there anybody who has the same failure and a solution ? :) Greets Dominik ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Virtual IP Integration
Has there been any discussion here about the idea integrating a virtual IP into ZFS. It makes sense to me because of the integration of NFS and iSCSI with the sharenfs and shareiscsi properties. Since these are both dependent on an IP it would be pretty cool if there was also a virtual IP that would automatically move with the pool. Maybe something like zfs set ip.nge0=x.x.x.x mypool Or since we may have different interfaces on the nodes where we want to move the zpool... zfs set ip.server1.nge0=x.x.x.x mypool zfs set ip.server2.bge0=x.x.x.x mypool I know this could be handled with Sun Cluster but if I am only building a simple storage appliance to serve NFS and iSCSI along with CIFS via SAMBA then I don't want or need the overhead and complexity of Sun Cluster. Anyone have comments about whether this is needed and worthwhile? Any good simple alternative ways to move a virtual IP with a zpool from one node to another? Regards, Vic This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS zpool created with MPxIO devices question
Customer asks: Will SunCluster 3.2 support ZFS zpool created with MPxIO devices instead of the corresponding DID devices? Will it cause any support issues? Thank you, James Lefebvre -- James Lefebvre - OS Technical Support[EMAIL PROTECTED] (800)USA-4SUN (Reference your Case Id #) Hours 8:00 - 5:00 EST Sun Support Services 4 Network Drive, UBUR04-105 Burlington MA 01803-0902 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs and EMC
This sounds familiarlike something about the powerpath device not responding to the SCSI inquiry strings. Are you using the same version of powerpath on both systems? Same type of array on both? Dominik Saar wrote: Hi there, have a strange behavior if i´ll create a zfs pool at an EMC PowerPath pseudo device. I can create a pool on emcpower0a but not on emcpower2a zpool core dumps with invalid argument Thats my second maschine with powerpath and zfs the first one works fine, even zfs/powerpath and failover ... Is there anybody who has the same failure and a solution ? :) Greets Dominik ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs and EMC
Same version on both systems On Monday i´ll concat the facts, what stuck out me ... there are some points there are very strange .. Am Freitag, den 15.06.2007, 10:52 -0400 schrieb Torrey McMahon: This sounds familiarlike something about the powerpath device not responding to the SCSI inquiry strings. Are you using the same version of powerpath on both systems? Same type of array on both? Dominik Saar wrote: Hi there, have a strange behavior if i´ll create a zfs pool at an EMC PowerPath pseudo device. I can create a pool on emcpower0a but not on emcpower2a zpool core dumps with invalid argument Thats my second maschine with powerpath and zfs the first one works fine, even zfs/powerpath and failover ... Is there anybody who has the same failure and a solution ? :) Greets Dominik ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Dominik Saar IT Corporate Server 11 Internet AG Elgendorfer Str. 57 56410 Montabaur Telefon: 02602/96-1635 Telefax: 02602/96--1635 Amtsgericht Montabaur HRB 6484 Vorstand: Henning Ahlert, Ralph Dommermuth, Matthias Ehrlich, Andreas Gauger, Matthias Greve, Robert Hoffmann, Norbert Lang, Achim Weiss Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Michael Scheeren ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
Hi Rick, Hmm. Not sure I can do RAID5 (and boot from it). Presumably, though, this would continue to function if a drive went bad. It also prevents ZFS from managing the devices itself, which I think is undesirable (according to the ZFS Admin Guide). I'm also not sure if I have RAID5 support in the BIOS. I think it's just RAID0/1. Just a mainboard BIOS RAID is only like a software raid - accept that you may can't get your data back if the RAID-controller die ... and when, you'll need the same hardware again. So you may want to use a software-RAID instead of a plugin-card which supports buffering the read/write operations on power lost - it is nearly the same as when you use your BIOS (not a RAID-Controller) for that. And I RAID5 you'll able to boot if you have a /boot partition outside the RAID5. Greetings Cyron signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: Karma Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
Ian Collins wrote: Alec Muffett wrote: As I understand matters, from my notes to design the perfect home NAS server :-) 1) you want to give ZFS entire spindles if at all possible; that will mean it can enable and utilise the drive's hardware write cache properly, leading to a performance boost. You want to do this if you can. Alas it knocks out the split all disks into 7 493Gb partitions design concept. 2) I've considered pivot-root solutions based around a USB stick or drive; cute, but I want a single tower box and no dongles 3) This leads me to the following design points: - enormous tower case with 10+ bays A good alternative is a smaller case with 6 bays and two 5 way SuperMicro cages. Better for space and drive cooling. - HE/high-efficency mobo with 8+ SATA capability What 8-port-SATA motherboard models are Solaris-friendly? I've hunted and hunted and have finally resigned myself to getting a generic motherboard with PCIe-x16 and dropping in an Areca PCIe-x8 RAID card (in JBOD config, of course). As for drive arrangement, I went with the Addonics 5-drives-in-3-bays cages, rather similar to the SuperMicro ones mentioned above. -- Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __o Life: [EMAIL PROTECTED]_`\,_ (_)/ (_) They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance. -- Major General John Sedgwick ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: Karma Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
comments from the peanut gallery... Rob Windsor wrote: Ian Collins wrote: Alec Muffett wrote: As I understand matters, from my notes to design the perfect home NAS server :-) 1) you want to give ZFS entire spindles if at all possible; that will mean it can enable and utilise the drive's hardware write cache properly, leading to a performance boost. You want to do this if you can. Alas it knocks out the split all disks into 7 493Gb partitions design concept. Most mobos still have IDE ports where you can hang a 40GByte disk or two for installing bootable ZFS (until it gets fully integrated into install) and as a dump device. 2) I've considered pivot-root solutions based around a USB stick or drive; cute, but I want a single tower box and no dongles 3) This leads me to the following design points: - enormous tower case with 10+ bays A good alternative is a smaller case with 6 bays and two 5 way SuperMicro cages. Better for space and drive cooling. - HE/high-efficency mobo with 8+ SATA capability What 8-port-SATA motherboard models are Solaris-friendly? I've hunted and hunted and have finally resigned myself to getting a generic motherboard with PCIe-x16 and dropping in an Areca PCIe-x8 RAID card (in JBOD config, of course). In the short term, look for AHCI (eg. Intel ICH6 and Via vt8251) for onboard SATA. NVidia SATA (nv_sata) is still not integrated :-(. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Boot manual setup in b65
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:37:06AM -0700, Douglas Atique wrote: I have the impression (didn't check though) that the pool is made available by just setting some information in its main superblock or something alike (sorry for the imprecisions in ZFS jargon). I understand the OS knows which pool/fs it wants to mount onto /. It also knows that the root filesystem is ZFS, so it could in theory be able to import the pool at boot, I suppose. So I wonder if the OS could prompt the user on the console to import the pool or even use some (additional) boot options to instruct it to either import the pool without asking or reboot without panicking (e.g. -B auto-import-exported-root-pool=true/false). I guess this would be an RFE rather than a bug. Any thoughts on it? Sure, that would seem possible. Keep in mind that the boot environment is extremely limited when dealing with devices. For example, I don't know if it's possible for a grub plugin to search all attached devices, which would be necessary for pool import. Off-topic question, but I cannot resist. What is FMA-style knowledge articles? See the Fault Management community: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/fm/ As well as the event registry: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/events-registry/ - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Virtual IP Integration
Vic Engle wrote: Has there been any discussion here about the idea integrating a virtual IP into ZFS. It makes sense to me because of the integration of NFS and iSCSI with the sharenfs and shareiscsi properties. Since these are both dependent on an IP it would be pretty cool if there was also a virtual IP that would automatically move with the pool. Maybe something like zfs set ip.nge0=x.x.x.x mypool Or since we may have different interfaces on the nodes where we want to move the zpool... zfs set ip.server1.nge0=x.x.x.x mypool zfs set ip.server2.bge0=x.x.x.x mypool I know this could be handled with Sun Cluster but if I am only building a simple storage appliance to serve NFS and iSCSI along with CIFS via SAMBA then I don't want or need the overhead and complexity of Sun Cluster. Overhead? The complexity of a simple HA storage service is quite small. The complexity arises when you have multiple dependencies where various applications depend on local storage and other applications. (think SMF, but spread across multiple OSes). For a simple relationship such as storage--ZFS--share, there isn't much complexity. Reinventing the infrastructure needed to manage access in the face of failures is a distinctly non-trivial task. You can even begin with a single node cluster, though a virtual IP on a single node cluster isn't very interesting. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: Karma Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
On 6/15/07, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alec Muffett wrote: 2) I've considered pivot-root solutions based around a USB stick or drive; cute, but I want a single tower box and no dongles You could buy a laptop disk, or mount one of these on the motherboard: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822998003 with a card like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820214113 for about $20. A good alternative is a smaller case with 6 bays and two 5 way SuperMicro cages. Better for space and drive cooling. Interesting in this regard is the yy-0221: http://www.directron.com/yy0221bk.html with 10 3.5 bays (well-cooled, too - fans mounted in front of 8 of them) and 6 5.25 bays. This doesn't leave much room for a power supply, unfortunately - the Supermicro bays are almost 10 deep, and the case is only 18 deep. I'll measure when I get home, but suffice it to say that the Enermax EG651P-VE I have in mine (at 140mm deep, if the manufacturer specs are correct) is a little on the tight side. But powerful PSUs aren't necessarily any deeper - the Silverstone OP750, for example, is only 150mm, which I think would fit fine. Will ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Virtual IP Integration
Well I suppose complexity is relative. Still, to use Sun Cluster at all I have to install the cluster framework on each node, correct? And even before that I have to install an interconnect with 2 switches unless I direct connect a simple 2 node cluster. My thinking was that ZFS seems to try and bundle all storage related tasks into 1 simple interface including making vfstab and dfstab entries unnecessary and considered legacy wrt ZFS. If I am using ZFS only to serve storage via IP then the only component I'm forced to manage outside of ZFS is the IP and if that's really all I want then it does seem like overkill to install, configure and administer sun cluster framework on even 2 nodes. I'm not really thinking about an application where I really need sun cluster like availability. Just the convenience factor of being able to export a pool to another system if I need to do maintenance or patching or whatever without having to go configure the other system. As it is now, the only thing I might need to do is go bring the virtual IP on the system I import the pool to. A good example would be maybe a system where I keep jumpstart images. I really don't need HA for it but simple administration is always a plus. It's an easy enough task to script I suppose but it occurred to me that it would be very convenient to have this task builtin to ZFS. Regards, Vic On 6/15/07, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vic Engle wrote: Has there been any discussion here about the idea integrating a virtual IP into ZFS. It makes sense to me because of the integration of NFS and iSCSI with the sharenfs and shareiscsi properties. Since these are both dependent on an IP it would be pretty cool if there was also a virtual IP that would automatically move with the pool. Maybe something like zfs set ip.nge0=x.x.x.x mypool Or since we may have different interfaces on the nodes where we want to move the zpool... zfs set ip.server1.nge0=x.x.x.x mypool zfs set ip.server2.bge0=x.x.x.x mypool I know this could be handled with Sun Cluster but if I am only building a simple storage appliance to serve NFS and iSCSI along with CIFS via SAMBA then I don't want or need the overhead and complexity of Sun Cluster. Overhead? The complexity of a simple HA storage service is quite small. The complexity arises when you have multiple dependencies where various applications depend on local storage and other applications. (think SMF, but spread across multiple OSes). For a simple relationship such as storage--ZFS--share, there isn't much complexity. Reinventing the infrastructure needed to manage access in the face of failures is a distinctly non-trivial task. You can even begin with a single node cluster, though a virtual IP on a single node cluster isn't very interesting. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Virtual IP Integration
Victor Engle wrote: Well I suppose complexity is relative. Still, to use Sun Cluster at all I have to install the cluster framework on each node, correct? And even before that I have to install an interconnect with 2 switches unless I direct connect a simple 2 node cluster. Yes, rolling your own cluster software will not release you from these requirements. The only way to release these requirements is to increase the risk of data corruption. My thinking was that ZFS seems to try and bundle all storage related tasks into 1 simple interface including making vfstab and dfstab entries unnecessary and considered legacy wrt ZFS. If I am using ZFS only to serve storage via IP then the only component I'm forced to manage outside of ZFS is the IP and if that's really all I want then it does seem like overkill to install, configure and administer sun cluster framework on even 2 nodes. If you are considering manual failover, then this isn't very difficult. For automated failover, you will need automated management of the services, which is what Solaris Cluster provides. I'm not really thinking about an application where I really need sun cluster like availability. Just the convenience factor of being able to export a pool to another system if I need to do maintenance or patching or whatever without having to go configure the other system. As it is now, the only thing I might need to do is go bring the virtual IP on the system I import the pool to. A good example would be maybe a system where I keep jumpstart images. I really don't need HA for it but simple administration is always a plus. It's an easy enough task to script I suppose but it occurred to me that it would be very convenient to have this task builtin to ZFS. I don't see where this is a problem in a manual case. You can have more than one IP address per NIC. So you could use a virtual IP address that moves to the active server without affecing the fixed IP addresses. But you can't have both servers attempting to use the same IP address at the same time -- Solaris Cluster manages this task automatically. There are other nuances as well. Clients tend to react poorly if an IP address is active, but the service is not. For NFS, the behaviour is widely understood and Solaris Cluster will ensure that the server side tasks occur in proper order (eg. import storage before it is shared, resolve locks, etc.) For iSCSI, I'm not sure what the client behaviours are. In any case, you do not want your clients to restart/reboot/hang when you migrate the service between nodes. Bottom line: manual tasks can work around the nuances, for those who are interested in manual tasks. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Karma Re: Re: Best use of 4 drives?
Here's a start for a suggested equipment list: Lian Li case with 17 drive bays (12 3.5 , 5 5.25) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1682064 Asus M2N32-WS motherboard has PCI-X and PCI-E slots. I'm using Nevada b64 for iSCSI targets: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131026 Your choice of CPU and memory. I'm using an Opteron 1212 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819105016 and DDR2-800 memory http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145034. BTW, I'm not spamming for Newegg, it's just who I used and had the links handy ;^] TK This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Karma Re: Re: Best use of 4 drives?
Tom Kimes wrote: Here's a start for a suggested equipment list: Lian Li case with 17 drive bays (12 3.5 , 5 5.25) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1682064 So it only has room for one power supply. How many disk drives will you be installing? It's not the steady state current that matters, as much as it is the ability to handle the surge current of starting to spin 17 disks from zero rpm. That initial surge can stall a lot of lesser power supplies. Will be interesting to see what happens here. Asus M2N32-WS motherboard has PCI-X and PCI-E slots. I'm using Nevada b64 for iSCSI targets: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131026 Your choice of CPU and memory. I'm using an Opteron 1212 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819105016 and DDR2-800 memory http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145034. BTW, I'm not spamming for Newegg, it's just who I used and had the links handy ;^] TK This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: Karma Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
Rob Windsor wrote: What 8-port-SATA motherboard models are Solaris-friendly? I've hunted and hunted and have finally resigned myself to getting a generic motherboard with PCIe-x16 and dropping in an Areca PCIe-x8 RAID card (in JBOD config, of course). I don't know about 8 port SATA, but I used an Asus L1N64-SLI which has 12 and is very Solaris friendly. Ian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Karma Re: Re: Best use of 4 drives?
On 6/15/07, Brian Hechinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm, that's an interesting point. I remember the old days of having to stagger startup for large drives (physically large, not capacity large). Can that be done with SATA? I had to link 2 600w power supplies together to be able to power on 12 drives... I believe it is up to the controller (and possibly the drives) to support staggering. But it is allowed in SATA if the controller/drives support it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
I'm having a heckuva time posting to individual replies (keep getting exceptions). I have a 1U rackmount server with 4 bays. I don't think there's any way to squeeze in a small IDE drive, and I don't want to reduce the swap transfer rate if I can avoid it. The machine has 4 500 GB SATA drives, 2 GB RAM, and an AMD Opteron 175 Denmark 2.2GHz CPU The machine itself is a TYAN B2865G20S4H Industry 19 rack-mountable 1U chassis Barebone Server NVIDIA nForce4 Ultra Socket 939 AMD Opteron Up to 1 GHz Hyper-Transport link support FSB: http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16856152019 I'm afraid I don't know much about the different peripheral controllers available in the PC world (I'm a Mac guy), so I don't know if I've shot myself in the foot with what I've bought. Sadly, I think I'll just waste 500 GB of space for now; don't really see a better solution. I may have to bail on the whole effort if I can't get all my other apps running on b65 (Java, Resin, MySQL, etc). This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
Rick Mann wrote: I'm having a heckuva time posting to individual replies (keep getting exceptions). I have a 1U rackmount server with 4 bays. I don't think there's any way to squeeze in a small IDE drive, and I don't want to reduce the swap transfer rate if I can avoid it. The machine has 4 500 GB SATA drives, 2 GB RAM, and an AMD Opteron 175 Denmark 2.2GHz CPU The machine itself is a TYAN B2865G20S4H Industry 19 rack-mountable 1U chassis Barebone Server NVIDIA nForce4 Ultra Socket 939 AMD Opteron Up to 1 GHz Hyper-Transport link support FSB: http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16856152019 For the time being, these SATA disks will operate in IDE compatibility mode, so don't worry about the write cache. There is some debate about whether the write cache is a win at all, but that is another rat hole. Go ahead and split off some space for boot and swap. Put the rest in ZFS. Mirror for best all-around performance. I'm afraid I don't know much about the different peripheral controllers available in the PC world (I'm a Mac guy), so I don't know if I've shot myself in the foot with what I've bought. Sadly, I think I'll just waste 500 GB of space for now; don't really see a better solution. I may have to bail on the whole effort if I can't get all my other apps running on b65 (Java, Resin, MySQL, etc). Java and mysql are already integrated into Solaris. The only resin I use comes from trees, not software developers :-). -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
Rick Mann wrote: Richard Elling wrote: For the time being, these SATA disks will operate in IDE compatibility mode, so don't worry about the write cache. There is some debate about whether the write cache is a win at all, but that is another rat hole. Go ahead and split off some space for boot and swap. Put the rest in ZFS. Mirror for best all-around performance. I assume you mean to dedicate one drive to boot/swap/upgrade, and the other three drives to ZFS. But I can't mirror with only 3 drives, so I think RAIDZ is best, wouldn't you agree? Try some tests on you box: slice one drive for root, swap and the rest ZFS. Install on that drive and create a raidz pool with the other drives, benchmark. Slice the other drives in the same way as the first and build either a raidz pool or a stripe of two of mirrors from the four ZFS slices, benchmark. The time will be well spent. Ian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
Rick Mann wrote: Richard Elling wrote: For the time being, these SATA disks will operate in IDE compatibility mode, so don't worry about the write cache. There is some debate about whether the write cache is a win at all, but that is another rat hole. Go ahead and split off some space for boot and swap. Put the rest in ZFS. Mirror for best all-around performance. I assume you mean to dedicate one drive to boot/swap/upgrade, and the other three drives to ZFS. But I can't mirror with only 3 drives, so I think RAIDZ is best, wouldn't you agree? What I would do: 2 disks: slice 0 3 root (BE and ABE), slice 1 swap/dump, slice 6 ZFS mirror 2 disks: whole disk mirrors The ZFS config would be a dynamic stripe of mirrors. Later, when you spring for 1TByte disks, you can replace them one at a time, and grow with minimal effort. KISS Your challenge will be how to back this beast up. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
Richard Elling wrote: What I would do: 2 disks: slice 0 3 root (BE and ABE), slice 1 swap/dump, slice 6 ZFS mirror 2 disks: whole disk mirrors I don't understand slice 6 zfs mirror. A mirror takes *two* things of the same size. -- David Dyer-Bennet, [EMAIL PROTECTED]; http://dd-b.net/dd-b Pics: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum, http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery Dragaera: http://dragaera.info ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Richard Elling wrote: For the time being, these SATA disks will operate in IDE compatibility mode, so don't worry about the write cache. There is some debate about whether the write cache is a win at all, but that is another rat hole. Go ahead and split off some space for boot and swap. Put the rest in ZFS. Mirror for best all-around performance. I assume you mean to dedicate one drive to boot/swap/upgrade, and the other three drives to ZFS. But I can't mirror with only 3 drives, so I think RAIDZ is best, wouldn't you agree? I'll chime in here with a me too to Richard's suggestion, though slightly different layout. We have a Sun T2000 here with 4x 73GB drives, and it works just fine to mix UFS and ZFS on old-fashioned slices (partitions) across all four of them. On your first disk, use s0 for a large-enough root, maybe 10GB; Then s1 is swap; The rest of the disk can be s6, which you'll use for ZFS. Now, slice up all four disks exactly the same way. Create an SVM mirror across the first two s0's, that's your root. Create a 2nd SVM mirror across the first two s1's, that's your swap. The 3rd and 4th s0's and s1's can be anything you like, maybe mirrored alternate boot env. for liveupgrade, etc. I made mine into a ZFS-mirrored /export. Lastly, use the four s6's to create a big RAID-Z pool. With your four 500GB drives, you've given up only 12-14GB each for your system usage, so the remaining 486-488GB should give you nearly 1.4TB of useable RAID-Z protected space. Sure, it's not optimal, but it's really quite good. Regards, Marion ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Richard Elling wrote: What I would do: 2 disks: slice 0 3 root (BE and ABE), slice 1 swap/dump, slice 6 ZFS mirror 2 disks: whole disk mirrors I don't understand slice 6 zfs mirror. A mirror takes *two* things of the same size. Note the 2 disks:. Ian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Karma Re: Re: Best use of 4 drives?
On 6/15/07, Brian Hechinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 02:27:18PM -0700, Neal Pollack wrote: So it only has room for one power supply. How many disk drives will you be installing? It's not the steady state current that matters, as much as it is the ability to handle the surge current of starting to spin 17 disks from zero rpm. That initial surge can stall a lot of lesser power supplies. Will be interesting to see what happens here. Drives only really take 1.5A or so from the 12V rail when spinning up, but it's a good rule of thumb to pretend they take 3A each on top of the other junk in your system. A low-usage system like a Core 2 Duo with a non-nV chipset and onboard or low-end video can run in 100 watts with no problems, so add 51A of 12V rail capacity to 100 watts worth and you can still find PSUs that supply that. If you do staggered spinup, you can allocate something more like 10A plus one amp per drive. In either case, an OP1000 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817256010) or a PCPC TC1KW-SR (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703007) would do you even if you wanted to do SLI or something equally ridiculous. Hmmm, that's an interesting point. I remember the old days of having to stagger startup for large drives (physically large, not capacity large). Can that be done with SATA? Can and is. On my Marvell 88sx6081 controller, it happened without my having to configure anything magical. Will ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Best use of 4 drives?
Ian Collins wrote: David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Richard Elling wrote: What I would do: 2 disks: slice 0 3 root (BE and ABE), slice 1 swap/dump, slice 6 ZFS mirror 2 disks: whole disk mirrors I don't understand slice 6 zfs mirror. A mirror takes *two* things of the same size. Note the 2 disks:. Yeah, should probably draw a picture :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Mac OS X Leopard to use ZFS
I'm curious about something. Wouldn't ZFS `send` and `recv` be a perfect fit for Apple Time Machine in Leopard if glued together by some scripts? In this scenario you could have an external volume and simply send snapshots to it and reciprocate as needed with recv. Also, it would seem that Apple really can't push ZFS into Mac OS X until evacuation of data and removal of vdevs is supported for pools. Once this is in place it would seem reasonable that Apple would more than want to push ZFS rw support into Leopard. This would then allow for very flexible and robust usage for desktop users as well in that folks will very often wish to manipulate their storage arrangement in terms of saying woops, I didn't mean to put that volume here permanently, I need to remove it! This would especially be true of firewire/usb drives for backups and all sorts of questions that would arise. A simple, `remove` would be perfect to cure these blues. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Mac OS X Leopard to use ZFS
George wrote: I'm curious about something. Wouldn't ZFS `send` and `recv` be a perfect fit for Apple Time Machine in Leopard if glued together by some scripts? In this scenario you could have an external volume and simply send snapshots to it and reciprocate as needed with recv. Also, it would seem that Apple really can't push ZFS into Mac OS X until evacuation of data and removal of vdevs is supported for pools. Does hfs+ support this? I see no evidence that it does. Once this is in place it would seem reasonable that Apple would more than want to push ZFS rw support into Leopard. This would then allow for very flexible and robust usage for desktop users as well in that folks will very often wish to manipulate their storage arrangement in terms of saying woops, I didn't mean to put that volume here permanently, I need to remove it! This would especially be true of firewire/usb drives for backups and all sorts of questions that would arise. A simple, `remove` would be perfect to cure these blues. More likely, they are trying to make sure it fits their integration time schedules. There is still a lot of development being done on ZFS. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
