[zfs-discuss] Re: Migrating ZFS pool with zones from one host to another
before the zoneadm attach or boot you must create the configuration on the second host, manuell or with the detached config from first host. zonecfg -z heczone 'create -a /hecpool/zones/heczone' zoneadm -z heczone attach ( to attach the requirements must fulfilled (pkgs and patches in sync) ) 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 practice for moving FS between pool on same machine?
Hi, Chris Quenelle wrote: Thanks, Constantin! That sounds like the right answer for me. Can I use send and/or snapshot at the pool level? Or do I have to use it on one filesystem at a time? I couldn't quite figure this out from the man pages. the ZFS team is working on a zfs send -r (recursive) option to be able to recursively send and receive hierarchies of ZFS filesystems in one go, including pools. So you'll need to do it one filesystem at a time. This is not always trivial: If you send a full snapshot, then an incremental one and the target filesystem is mounted, you'll likely get an error that the target filesystem was modified. Make sure the target filesystems are unmounted and ideally marked as unmountable while performing the send/receives. Also, you may want to use the -F option to receive which forces a rollback of the target filesystem to the most recent snapshot. I've written a script to do all of this, but it's only works on my system certified. I'd like to get some feedback and validation before I post it on my blog, so anyone, let me know if you want to try it out. Best regards, Constantin -- Constantin GonzalezSun Microsystems GmbH, Germany Platform Technology Group, Global Systems Engineering http://www.sun.de/ Tel.: +49 89/4 60 08-25 91 http://blogs.sun.com/constantin/ Sitz d. Ges.: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, 85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Marcel Schneider, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Slow write speed to ZFS pool (via NFS)
Joe S writes: After researching this further, I found that there are some known performance issues with NFS + ZFS. I tried transferring files via SMB, and got write speeds on average of 25MB/s. So I will have my UNIX systems use SMB to write files to my Solaris server. This seems weird, but its fast. I'm sure Sun is working on fixing this. I can't imagine running a Sun box with out NFS. Call be a picky but : There is no NFS over ZFS issue (IMO/FWIW). There is a ZFS over NVRAM issue; well understood (not related to NFS). There is a Samba vs NFS issue; not well understood (not related to ZFS). This last bullet is probably better suited for [EMAIL PROTECTED] If ZFS is talking to storage array with NVRAM, then we have an issue (not related to NFS) described by : http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6462690 6462690 sd driver should set SYNC_NV bit when issuing SYNCHRONIZE CACHE to SBC-2 devices The above bug/rfe lies in the SD driver but very much triggered by ZFS particularly running NFS, but not only. It affects only NVRAM based storage and is being worked on. If ZFS is talking to a JBOD, then the slowness is a characteristic of NFS (not related to ZFS). So FWIW on JBOD, there is no ZFS+NFS issue in the sense that I don't know howwe couldchange ZFS to be significantly better at NFS nor do I know how to change NFS that would help _particularly_ ZFS. Doesn't mean there is none, I just don't know about them. So please ping me if you highlight such an issue. So if one replaces ZFS by some other filesystem and gets large speedup I'm interested (make sure the other filesystem either runs with write cache off, or flushes it on NFS commit). So that leaves us with a Samba vs NFS issue (not related to ZFS). We know that NFS is able to create file _at most_ at one file per server I/O latency. Samba appears better and this is what we need to investigate. It might be better in a way that NFS can borrow (maybe through some better NFSV4 delegation code) or Samba might be better by being careless with data. If we find such an NFS improvement it will help all backend filesystems not just ZFS. Which is why I say: There is no NFS over ZFS issue. -r ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: [Fwd: What Veritas is saying vs ZFS]
Also introduces the Veritas sfop utility, which is the 'simplified' front-end to VxVM/VxFS. As imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, this smacks of a desperate attempt to prove to their customers that Vx can be just as slick as ZFS. More details at http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/products/ agents_options_details.jsp?pcid=2245pvid=203_1aoid=sf_simple_admin including a ref. guide ... Craig On 21 Jun 2007, at 08:03, Selim Daoud wrote: From: Ric Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 20 June 2007 22:46:48 BDT To: DMA Ambassadors [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: What Veritas is saying vs ZFS Thought it might behoove us all to see this presentation from the Veritas conference last week, and understand what they are saying vs ZFS and our storage plans. Some interesting performance claims to say the least RicSTG7328_FINAL_June-07-07.pdf -- Craig Craig Morgan t: +44 (0)791 338 3190 f: +44 (0)870 705 1726 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ~ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Undo/reverse zpool create
Hi, If I add an entire disk to a new pool by doing zpool create, is this reversible? I.e. if there was data on that disk (e.g. it was the sole disk in a zpool in another system) can I get this back or is zpool create destructive? Joubert 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] Z-Raid performance with Random reads/writes
Because you have to read the entire stripe (which probably spans all the disks) to verify the checksum. Then I have a wrong idea of what a stripe is. I always thought it's the interleave block size. -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
[zfs-discuss] creating pool on slice which is mounted
partition p Current partition table (original): Total disk cylinders available: 49771 + 2 (reserved cylinders) Part TagFlag Cylinders SizeBlocks 7 homewm3814 - 49769 63.11GB(45956/0/0) 132353280 --- If i run the command zpool create pool name 7th slice (shown above which is mounted as home), will it cause any harm to the existing contents in home. - Satish 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] creating pool on slice which is mounted
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 06:16 -0700, satish s nandihalli wrote: Part TagFlag Cylinders SizeBlocks 7 homewm3814 - 49769 63.11GB(45956/0/0) 132353280 --- If i run the command zpool create pool name 7th slice (shown above which is mounted as home), will it cause any harm to the existing contents in home. If you use zpool create -f pool name 7th slice, yes, it'll destroy the filesystem that's on that slice and you won't be able to access any of the data presently on it. If you do zpool create pool 7th slice where slice has a UFS filesystem, and is mounted, it should print an error message, saying that a) there's a filesystem present b) it's mounted - so you need to unmount it, and use the -f flag. cheers, tim In more detail: (snip newfs of c2t1d0s1 to put a UFS filesystem on it) # mount /dev/dsk/c2t1d0s1 /tmp/a # zpool create pool c2t1d0s1 invalid vdev specification use '-f' to override the following errors: /dev/dsk/c2t1d0s1 is currently mounted on /tmp/a. Please see umount(1M). # umount /tmp/a # zpool create pool c2t1d0s1 invalid vdev specification use '-f' to override the following errors: /dev/dsk/c2t1d0s1 contains a ufs filesystem. # zpool create -f pool c2t1d0s1 # -- Tim Foster, Sun Microsystems Inc, Solaris Engineering Ops http://blogs.sun.com/timf ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Bug in zpool history
Hi, I was playing around with NexentaCP and its zfs boot facility. I tried to figure out how what commands to run and I ran zpool history like this # zpool history 2007-06-20.10:19:46 zfs snapshot syspool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-20.10:20:03 zfs clone syspool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] syspool/myrootfs 2007-06-20.10:23:21 zfs set bootfs=syspool/myrootfs syspool As you can see it says I did a zfs set bootfs=... even though the correct command should have been zpool set bootfs= Of course this is purely cosmetical. I currently don't have access to a recent nevada build so I just wonder if this is present there as well. cheers, Nickus -- Have a look at my blog for sysadmins! http://aspiringsysadmin.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Proper way to detach attach
Hi, I've got some issues with my 5-disk SATA stack using two controllers. Some of the ports are acting strangely, so I'd like to play around and change which ports the disks are connected to. This means that I need to bring down the pool, swap some connections and then bring the pool back up. I may have to repeat this several times. I just wanted to clarify the steps needed to do this so I don't lose everything. Thanks, Gary This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: marvell88sx error in command 0x2f: status 0x51
[hourly] marvell88sx error in command 0x2f: status 0x51 ah, its some kinda SMART or FMA query that model WDC WD3200JD-00KLB0 firmware 08.05J08 serial number WD-WCAMR2427571 supported features: 48-bit LBA, DMA, SMART, SMART self-test SATA1 compatible capacity = 625142448 sectors drives do not support but model ST3750640AS firmware 3.AAK serial number 5QD02ES6 supported features: 48-bit LBA, DMA, Native Command Queueing, SMART, SMART self-test SATA1 compatible queue depth 32 capacity = 1465149168 sectors do... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Z-Raid performance with Random reads/writes
Le 20 juin 07 à 04:59, Ian Collins a écrit : I'm not sure why, but when I was testing various configurations with bonnie++, 3 pairs of mirrors did give about 3x the random read performance of a 6 disk raidz, but with 4 pairs, the random read performance dropped by 50%: 3x2 Blockread: 220464 Random read: 1520.1 4x2 Block read: 295747 Random read: 765.3 Ian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss Did you recreate the pool from scratch or did you add a pair of disk to the existing mirror ? If starting from scratch, I'm stumped. But for the later, the problem might lie in the data population. The newly added mirror might have gotten a larger share of the added data and restitution did not target all disks evenly. -r ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Z-Raid performance with Random reads/writes
Mario Goebbels wrote: Because you have to read the entire stripe (which probably spans all the disks) to verify the checksum. Then I have a wrong idea of what a stripe is. I always thought it's the interleave block size. Nope. A stripe generally refers to the logical block as spread across physical devices. For most RAID implementations (hardware, firmware, or software), the interleave size is the stripe width divided by the number of devices. In ZFS, dynamic striping doesn't have this restriction, which is how we can dynamically add physical devices to existing stripes. Jeff Bonwick describes this in the context of RAID-Z at http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/raid_z -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Bug in zpool history
On Jun 21, 2007, at 8:47 AM, Niclas Sodergard wrote: Hi, I was playing around with NexentaCP and its zfs boot facility. I tried to figure out how what commands to run and I ran zpool history like this # zpool history 2007-06-20.10:19:46 zfs snapshot syspool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-20.10:20:03 zfs clone syspool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] syspool/ myrootfs 2007-06-20.10:23:21 zfs set bootfs=syspool/myrootfs syspool As you can see it says I did a zfs set bootfs=... even though the correct command should have been zpool set bootfs= Of course this is purely cosmetical. I currently don't have access to a recent nevada build so I just wonder if this is present there as well. nice catch... i filed: 6572465 'zpool set bootfs=...' records history as 'zfs set bootfs=...' expect a fix today simply passing 'FALSE' instead of 'TRUE' as the 'pool' parameter in zpool_log_history(). eric ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Undo/reverse zpool create
Joubert Nel wrote: Hi, If I add an entire disk to a new pool by doing zpool create, is this reversible? I.e. if there was data on that disk (e.g. it was the sole disk in a zpool in another system) can I get this back or is zpool create destructive? Short answer: you're stuffed, and no, it's not reversible. Long answer: see the short answer. Darn! If the device was actually in use on another system, I would expect that libdiskmgmt would have warned you about this when you ran zpool create. When I ran zpool create, the pool got created without a warning. What is strange, and maybe I'm naive here, is that there was no formatting of this physical disk so I'm optimistic that the data is still recoverable from it, even though the new pool shadows it. Or is this way off mark? Joubert 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 practice for moving FS between pool on same machine?
Sorry I can't volunteer to test your script. I want to do the steps by hand to make sure I understand them. If I have to do it all again, I'll get in touch. Thanks for the advice! --chris Constantin Gonzalez wrote: Hi, Chris Quenelle wrote: Thanks, Constantin! That sounds like the right answer for me. Can I use send and/or snapshot at the pool level? Or do I have to use it on one filesystem at a time? I couldn't quite figure this out from the man pages. the ZFS team is working on a zfs send -r (recursive) option to be able to recursively send and receive hierarchies of ZFS filesystems in one go, including pools. So you'll need to do it one filesystem at a time. This is not always trivial: If you send a full snapshot, then an incremental one and the target filesystem is mounted, you'll likely get an error that the target filesystem was modified. Make sure the target filesystems are unmounted and ideally marked as unmountable while performing the send/receives. Also, you may want to use the -F option to receive which forces a rollback of the target filesystem to the most recent snapshot. I've written a script to do all of this, but it's only works on my system certified. I'd like to get some feedback and validation before I post it on my blog, so anyone, let me know if you want to try it out. Best regards, Constantin ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: New german white paper on ZFS
good work! 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] Proper way to detach attach
Run cfgadm to see what ports are recognized as hotswappable. Run cfgadm -cunconfigure portname and then make sure it's logically disconnected with cfgadm, then pull the disk and put it in another port. Then run cfgadm -cconfigure newport and it'll be ready to be imported again. Will ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Undo/reverse zpool create
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 11:03:39AM -0700, Joubert Nel wrote: When I ran zpool create, the pool got created without a warning. zpool(1M) will diallow creation of the disk if it contains data in active use (mounted fs, zfs pool, dump device, swap, etc). It will warn if it contains a recognized filesystem (zfs, ufs, etc) that is not currently mounted, but allow you to override it with '-f'. What was previously on the disk? What is strange, and maybe I'm naive here, is that there was no formatting of this physical disk so I'm optimistic that the data is still recoverable from it, even though the new pool shadows it. Or is this way off mark? You are guaranteed to have lost all data within the vdev label portions of the disk (see on-disk specification from opensolaris.org). How much else you lost depends on how long the device was active in the pool and how much data was written to it. - 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] Z-Raid performance with Random reads/writes
Roch Bourbonnais wrote: Le 20 juin 07 à 04:59, Ian Collins a écrit : I'm not sure why, but when I was testing various configurations with bonnie++, 3 pairs of mirrors did give about 3x the random read performance of a 6 disk raidz, but with 4 pairs, the random read performance dropped by 50%: 3x2 Blockread: 220464 Random read: 1520.1 4x2 Block read: 295747 Random read: 765.3 Did you recreate the pool from scratch or did you add a pair of disk to the existing mirror ? If starting from scratch, I'm stumped. But for the later, the problem might lie in the data population. The newly added mirror might have gotten a larger share of the added data and restitution did not target all disks evenly. From scratch. Each test was run on a new pool with one filesystem. Ian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZIL on user specified devices?
Quick question, Are there any tunables, or is there any way to specify devices in a pool to use for the ZIL specifically? I've been thinking through architectures to mitigate performance problems on SAN and various other storage technologies where disabling ZIL or cache flushes has been necessary to make up for performance and was wondering if there would be a way to specify a specific device or set of devices for the ZIL to use separate of the data devices so I wouldn't have to disable it in those circumstances. Thanks in advance! 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: Undo/reverse zpool create
Joubert Nel wrote: If the device was actually in use on another system, I would expect that libdiskmgmt would have warned you about this when you ran zpool create. AFAIK, libdiskmgmt is not multi-node aware. It does know about local uses of the disk. Remote uses of the disk, especially those shared with other OSes, is a difficult problem to solve where there are no standards. Reason #84612 why I hate SANs. When I ran zpool create, the pool got created without a warning. If the device was not currently in use, why wouldn't it proceed? What is strange, and maybe I'm naive here, is that there was no formatting of this physical disk so I'm optimistic that the data is still recoverable from it, even though the new pool shadows it. Or is this way off mark? If you define formatting as writing pertinent information to the disk such that ZFS works, then it was formatted. The uberblock and its replicas only take a few iops. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
