Re: [zfs-discuss] Mount order of ZFS filesystems vs. other filesystems?
Hello Kyle! All of these mounts are failing at bootup with messages about non-existent mountpoints. My guess is that it's because when /etc/vfstab is running, the ZFS '/export/OSImages' isn't mounted yet? Yes, that is absolutely correct. For details, look at the start method of svc:/system/filesystem/local:default, which lives in the script /lib/svc/method/fs-local. There you can see that ZFS is processed after the vfstab. Any ideas? The only way I could find was to set the mountpoint of the file system to legacy, and add it to /etc/vfstab. Here's an example: # ZFS legacy mounts: SHELOB/var - /var zfs - yes - SHELOB/opt - /opt zfs - yes - SHELOB/home - /home zfs - yes - # # -- loopback mount -- begin # loopback mount for /usr/local: /opt/local - /usr/locallofs - yes ro,nodevices /home/cvs - /opt/local/cvs lofs - yes rw,nodevices # -- loopback mount -- end Before I added /home to vfstab, the loopback for /opt/local/cvs would fail. HTH -- Volker -- Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris Brandt Brandt Computer GmbH WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/ Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513 Schuhgröße: 45 Geschäftsführer: Rainer J. H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Periodic flush
the question is: does the IO pausing behaviour you noticed penalize your application? what are the consequences at the application level? for instance we have seen application doing some kind of data capture from external device (video for example) requiring a constant throughput to disk (data feed), risking otherwise loss of data. in this case qfs might be a better option (no free though) if your application is not suffering, then you should be able to live with this apparent io hangs s- On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:35 AM, Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My application processes thousands of files sequentially, reading input files, and outputting new files. I am using Solaris 10U4. While running the application in a verbose mode, I see that it runs very fast but pauses about every 7 seconds for a second or two. This is while reading 50MB/second and writing 73MB/second (ARC cache miss rate of 87%). The pause does not occur if the application spends more time doing real work. However, it would be nice if the pause went away. I have tried turning down the ARC size (from 14GB to 10GB) but the behavior did not noticeably improve. The storage device is trained to ignore cache flush requests. According to the Evil Tuning Guide, the pause I am seeing is due to a cache flush after the uberblock updates. It does not seem like a wise choice to disable ZFS cache flushing entirely. Is there a better way other than adding a small delay into my application? Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- -- Blog: http://fakoli.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] UFS Formatted ZVOLs and Oracle Databases / MDBMS
Hi all, here's a couple questions. Has anyone run oracle databases off of a UFS formatted ZVOL? If so, how does it compare in speed to UFS direct io? I'm trying my best to get rid of UFS, but ZFS isn't up to par on the speed of UFS direct io for MDBMS. So I'm trying to come up with some creative ways to get the ease of use of the zfs filesystem manager, and get the speed and functionality of UFS direct io. (Aren't we all? hehe) Also, are UFS formatted ZVOLs officially supported by Sun? Thanks, Brandon Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Mount order of ZFS filesystems vs. other filesystems?
Volker A. Brandt wrote: Hello Kyle! All of these mounts are failing at bootup with messages about non-existent mountpoints. My guess is that it's because when /etc/vfstab is running, the ZFS '/export/OSImages' isn't mounted yet? Yes, that is absolutely correct. For details, look at the start method of svc:/system/filesystem/local:default, which lives in the script /lib/svc/method/fs-local. There you can see that ZFS is processed after the vfstab. Ok. So my theory was right. :) Any ideas? The only way I could find was to set the mountpoint of the file system to legacy, and add it to /etc/vfstab. Here's an example: I tried this last night also, after sending the message and I made it work. Seems clunky though. I wonder if there is a technical reason why it has to be done in this order? More importantly, I wonder if ZFS Boot will re-order this since the other FS's will all be ZFS. (Actually I wonder what will be left in /etc/vfstab?) # ZFS legacy mounts: SHELOB/var - /var zfs - yes - SHELOB/opt - /opt zfs - yes - SHELOB/home - /home zfs - yes - # # -- loopback mount -- begin # loopback mount for /usr/local: /opt/local - /usr/locallofs - yes ro,nodevices /home/cvs - /opt/local/cvs lofs - yes rw,nodevices # -- loopback mount -- end Before I added /home to vfstab, the loopback for /opt/local/cvs would fail. I'm guessing that /opt/local/cvs is *not* visible as /usr/local/cvs ??? -Kyle HTH -- Volker ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Periodic flush
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Neelakanth Nadgir wrote: When you experience the pause at the application level, do you see an increase in writes to disk? This might the regular syncing of the transaction group to disk. If I use 'zpool iostat' with a one second interval what I see is two or three samples with no write I/O at all followed by a huge write of 100 to 312MB/second. Writes claimed to be a lower rate are split across two sample intervale. It seems that writes are being cached and then issued all at once. This behavior assumes that the file may be written multiple times so a delayed write is more efficient. If I run a script like while true do sync done then the write data rate is much more consistent (at about 66MB/second) and the program does not stall. Of course this is not very efficient. Are the 'zpool iostat' statistics accurate? Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Periodic flush
Selim Daoud wrote: the question is: does the IO pausing behaviour you noticed penalize your application? what are the consequences at the application level? for instance we have seen application doing some kind of data capture from external device (video for example) requiring a constant throughput to disk (data feed), risking otherwise loss of data. in this case qfs might be a better option (no free though) if your application is not suffering, then you should be able to live with this apparent io hangs I would look at txg_time first... for lots of streaming writes on a machine with limited memory writes you can smooth out the sawtooth. QFS is open sourced. http://blogs.sun.com/samqfs -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Periodic flush
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Neelakanth Nadgir wrote: When you experience the pause at the application level, do you see an increase in writes to disk? This might the regular syncing of the transaction group to disk. If I use 'zpool iostat' with a one second interval what I see is two or three samples with no write I/O at all followed by a huge write of 100 to 312MB/second. Writes claimed to be a lower rate are split across two sample intervale. It seems that writes are being cached and then issued all at once. This behavior assumes that the file may be written multiple times so a delayed write is more efficient. This does sound like the regular syncing. If I run a script like while true do sync done then the write data rate is much more consistent (at about 66MB/second) and the program does not stall. Of course this is not very efficient. This causes the sync to happen much faster, but as you say, suboptimal. Haven't had the time to go through the bug report, but probably CR 6429205 each zpool needs to monitor its throughput and throttle heavy writers will help. Are the 'zpool iostat' statistics accurate? Yes. You could also look at regular iostat and correlate it. -neel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Periodic flush
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Neelakanth Nadgir wrote: This causes the sync to happen much faster, but as you say, suboptimal. Haven't had the time to go through the bug report, but probably CR 6429205 each zpool needs to monitor its throughput and throttle heavy writers will help. I hope that this feature is implemented soon, and works well. :-) I tested with my application outputting to a UFS filesystem on a single 15K RPM SAS disk and saw that it writes about 50MB/second and without the bursty behavior of ZFS. When writing to ZFS filesystem on a RAID array, zpool I/O stat reports an average (over 10 seconds) write rate of 54MB/second. Given that the throughput is not much higher on the RAID array, I assume that the bottleneck is in my application. Are the 'zpool iostat' statistics accurate? Yes. You could also look at regular iostat and correlate it. Iostat shows that my RAID array disks are loafing with only 9MB/second writes to each but with 82 writes/second. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ClearCase support for ZFS?
Hi, Does anybody know what is the latest status with ClearCase support for ZFS? I noticed this from IBM: http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=0uid=swg21155708 I would like to make sure someone has installed and tested it before recommending to a customer. Regards, Nissim Ben-Haim Solution Architect ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mount order of ZFS filesystems vs. other filesystems?
The only way I could find was to set the mountpoint of the file system to legacy, and add it to /etc/vfstab. Here's an example: I tried this last night also, after sending the message and I made it work. Seems clunky though. Yes, I also would have liked something more streamlined. But since adding entries to vfstab worked I did not pursue if further. I wonder if there is a technical reason why it has to be done in this order? I can only guess that anything else would have been too complex. The whole sequence seems to have room for improvement. For example in svc:/system/filesystem/root:default there are some checks to mount optimized libc and hwcap libraries, and /usr is mounted, but not the root fs (which I would have expected going by the FMRI name). More importantly, I wonder if ZFS Boot will re-order this since the other FS's will all be ZFS. My guess is that the whole thing will be rewritten. (Actually I wonder what will be left in /etc/vfstab?) Good question. I would think that the file will still be around; it'll have all the non-ZFS mount points, but the root fs will be mounted by ZFS. # ZFS legacy mounts: SHELOB/var - /var zfs - yes - SHELOB/opt - /opt zfs - yes - SHELOB/home - /home zfs - yes - # # -- loopback mount -- begin # loopback mount for /usr/local: /opt/local - /usr/locallofs - yes ro,nodevices /home/cvs - /opt/local/cvs lofs - yes rw,nodevices # -- loopback mount -- end Before I added /home to vfstab, the loopback for /opt/local/cvs would fail. I'm guessing that /opt/local/cvs is *not* visible as /usr/local/cvs ??? Oh, but it is: shelob:/usr/local/cvs,3764# pwd /usr/local/cvs shelob:/usr/local/cvs,3765# ls CVSROOT bbc pkg rjhb vab shelob:/usr/local/cvs,3766# df . Filesystemkbytesused avail capacity Mounted on SHELOB/home 916586496 74753216 42629431815%/home shelob:/usr/local/cvs,3767# mount | egrep 'local|cvs|home' /home on SHELOB/home read/write/setuid/devices/exec/xattr/atime/dev=4010004 on Tue Mar 25 18:45:08 2008 /usr/local on /opt/local read only/setuid/nodevices/dev=4010003 on Tue Mar 25 18:45:08 2008 /opt/local/cvs on /home/cvs read/write/setuid/nodevices/dev=4010004 on Tue Mar 25 18:45:08 2008 :-) Regards -- Volker -- Volker A. Brandt Consulting and Support for Sun Solaris Brandt Brandt Computer GmbH WWW: http://www.bb-c.de/ Am Wiesenpfad 6, 53340 Meckenheim Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Bonn, HRB 10513 Schuhgröße: 45 Geschäftsführer: Rainer J. H. Brandt und Volker A. Brandt ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] UFS Formatted ZVOLs and Oracle Databases / MDBMS
Well I don't have any hard numbers 'yet'. But sometime in the next couple weeks when the Hyperion Essbase install team get essbase up and running on a sun m4000, I plan on taking advantage of the situation to do some stress and performance testing on zfs and MDBMS. Stuff like ufs+directio, zfs, ufs formatted zvol, etc. It may be a while, but I'll post all the data once I get it. However, from what I've read, I'm sure ufs+directio will win on the performance testing. But I'm curious to this testing for myself. Brandon Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] UFS Formatted ZVOLs and Oracle Databases / MDBMS
Brandon Wilson wrote: Well I don't have any hard numbers 'yet'. But sometime in the next couple weeks when the Hyperion Essbase install team get essbase up and running on a sun m4000, I plan on taking advantage of the situation to do some stress and performance testing on zfs and MDBMS. Stuff like ufs+directio, zfs, ufs formatted zvol, etc. It may be a while, but I'll post all the data once I get it. However, from what I've read, I'm sure ufs+directio will win on the performance testing. But I'm curious to this testing for myself. In my mind, managing a Zvol is about as easy as managing a file. Why not just use the Zvol directly? -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] pool hangs for 1 full minute?
For the last few builds of Nevada, if I come back to my workstation after long idle periods such as overnight, and try any command that would touch the zfs filesystem, it hangs for an entire 60 seconds approximately. This would include ls, zpool status, etc. Does anyone has a hint as to how I wold diagnose this? Or is it time for extreme measures such as zfs send to another server, destroy, and rebuild a new zpool? Config and stat: Running Nevada build 85 and given; # zpool status pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM tankONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2ONLINE 0 0 0 c2d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c4d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c5d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c6d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c7d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c8d0ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors Also given: I have been doing live upgrade every other build since approx Nevada build 46. I am running on a Sun Ultra 40 modified to include 8 disks. (second backplane and SATA quad cable) It appears that the zfs filesystems are running version 1 and Nevada build 85 is running version 3. zbit:~# zfs upgrade This system is currently running ZFS filesystem version 3. The following filesystems are out of date, and can be upgraded. After being upgraded, these filesystems (and any 'zfs send' streams generated from subsequent snapshots) will no longer be accessible by older software versions. VER FILESYSTEM --- 1 tank 1 tank/arc Any hints at how to isolate and fix this would be appreciated. Thanks, Neal ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] pool hangs for 1 full minute?
On 27 March, 2008 - Neal Pollack sent me these 1,9K bytes:
Also given: I have been doing live upgrade every other build since
approx Nevada build 46. I am running on a Sun Ultra 40 modified
to include 8 disks. (second backplane and SATA quad cable)
It appears that the zfs filesystems are running version 1 and Nevada
build 85
is running version 3.
zbit:~# zfs upgrade
This system is currently running ZFS filesystem version 3.
Umm. nevada 78 is at version 10.. so I don't think you've managed to
upgrade stuff 100% ;)
This system is currently running ZFS pool version 10.
The following versions are supported:
VER DESCRIPTION
---
1 Initial ZFS version
2 Ditto blocks (replicated metadata)
3 Hot spares and double parity RAID-Z
4 zpool history
5 Compression using the gzip algorithm
6 bootfs pool property
7 Separate intent log devices
8 Delegated administration
9 refquota and refreservation properties
10 Cache devices
For more information on a particular version, including supported
releases, see:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/version/N
/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
Re: [zfs-discuss] pool hangs for 1 full minute?
Tomas Ögren wrote: On 27 March, 2008 - Neal Pollack sent me these 1,9K bytes: Also given: I have been doing live upgrade every other build since approx Nevada build 46. I am running on a Sun Ultra 40 modified to include 8 disks. (second backplane and SATA quad cable) It appears that the zfs filesystems are running version 1 and Nevada build 85 is running version 3. zbit:~# zfs upgrade This system is currently running ZFS filesystem version 3. Umm. nevada 78 is at version 10.. so I don't think you've managed to upgrade stuff 100% ;) This system is currently running ZFS pool version 10. ZFS filesystem version is at 3 My zpool is at version 10 zbit:~# zpool upgrade This system is currently running ZFS pool version 10. All pools are formatted using this version. The following versions are supported: VER DESCRIPTION --- 1 Initial ZFS version 2 Ditto blocks (replicated metadata) 3 Hot spares and double parity RAID-Z 4 zpool history 5 Compression using the gzip algorithm 6 bootfs pool property 7 Separate intent log devices 8 Delegated administration 9 refquota and refreservation properties 10 Cache devices For more information on a particular version, including supported releases, see: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/version/N /Tomas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Periodic flush
On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Neelakanth Nadgir wrote: This causes the sync to happen much faster, but as you say, suboptimal. Haven't had the time to go through the bug report, but probably CR 6429205 each zpool needs to monitor its throughput and throttle heavy writers will help. I hope that this feature is implemented soon, and works well. :-) Actually, this has gone back into snv_87 (and no we don't know which s10uX it will go into yet). eric ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] kernel memory and zfs
We have a 32 GB RAM server running about 14 zones. There are multiple databases, application servers, web servers, and ftp servers running in the various zones. I understand that using ZFS will increase kernel memory usage, however I am a bit concerned at this point. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/zonecfg #mdb -k Loading modules: [ unix krtld genunix specfs dtrace uppc pcplusmp ufs md mpt ip indmux ptm nfs ] ::memstat Page Summary Pages MB %Tot Kernel 4108442 16048 49% Anon 3769634 14725 45% Exec and libs 9098 35 0% Page cache 29612 115 0% Free (cachelist) 99437 388 1% Free (freelist) 369040 1441 4% Total 8385263 32754 Physical 8176401 31939 Out of 32GB of RAM, 16GB is being used by the kernel. Is there a way to find out how much of that kernel memory is due to ZFS? It just seems an excessively high amount of our memory is going to the kernel, even with ZFS being used on the server. 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] Periodic flush
you may want to try disabling the disk write cache on the single disk. also for the RAID disable 'host cache flush' if such an option exists. that solved the problem for me. let me know. Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Neelakanth Nadgir wrote: This causes the sync to happen much faster, but as you say, suboptimal. Haven't had the time to go through the bug report, but probably CR 6429205 each zpool needs to monitor its throughput and throttle heavy writers will help. I hope that this feature is implemented soon, and works well. :-) I tested with my application outputting to a UFS filesystem on a single 15K RPM SAS disk and saw that it writes about 50MB/second and without the bursty behavior of ZFS. When writing to ZFS filesystem on a RAID array, zpool I/O stat reports an average (over 10 seconds) write rate of 54MB/second. Given that the throughput is not much higher on the RAID array, I assume that the bottleneck is in my application. Are the 'zpool iostat' statistics accurate? Yes. You could also look at regular iostat and correlate it. Iostat shows that my RAID array disks are loafing with only 9MB/second writes to each but with 82 writes/second. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] kernel memory and zfs
Matt Cohen wrote: We have a 32 GB RAM server running about 14 zones. There are multiple databases, application servers, web servers, and ftp servers running in the various zones. I understand that using ZFS will increase kernel memory usage, however I am a bit concerned at this point. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/zonecfg #mdb -k Loading modules: [ unix krtld genunix specfs dtrace uppc pcplusmp ufs md mpt ip indmux ptm nfs ] ::memstat Page Summary Pages MB %Tot Kernel 4108442 16048 49% Anon 3769634 14725 45% Exec and libs 9098 35 0% Page cache 29612 115 0% Free (cachelist) 99437 388 1% Free (freelist) 369040 1441 4% Total 8385263 32754 Physical 8176401 31939 Out of 32GB of RAM, 16GB is being used by the kernel. Is there a way to find out how much of that kernel memory is due to ZFS? The size of the ARC (cache) is available from kstat in the zfs module (kstat -m zfs). Neel wrote a nifty tool to track it over time called arcstat. See http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/Arcstat Remember that this is a cache and subject to eviction when memory pressure grows. The Solaris Internals books have more details on how the Solaris virtual memory system works and is recommended reading. -- richard It just seems an excessively high amount of our memory is going to the kernel, even with ZFS being used on the server. 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
[zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance
hello all, i have two xraids connect via fibre to a poweredge2950. the 2 xraids are configured with 2 raid5 volumes each, giving me a total of 4 raid5 volumes. these are striped across in zfs. the read and write speeds local to the machine are as expected but i have noticed some performance hits in the read and write speed over nfs and samba. here is the observation: each filesystem is shared via nfs as well as samba. i am able to mount via nfs and samba on a Mac OS 10.5.2 client. i am able to only mount via nfs on a Mac OS 10.4.11 client. (there seems to be authentication/encryption issue between the 10.4.11 client and solaris box in this scenario. i know this is a bug on the client side) when writing a file via nfs from the 10.5.2 client the speeds are 60 ~ 70 MB/sec. when writing a file via samba from the 10.5.2 client the speeds are 30 ~ 50 MB/sec when writing a file via nfs from the 10.4.11 client the speeds are 20 ~ 30 MB/sec. when writing a file via samba from a Windows XP client the speeds are 30 ~ 40 MB. i know that there is an implementational difference in nfs and samba on both Mac OS 10.4.11 and 10.5.2 clients but that still does not explain the Windows scenario. i was wondering if anyone else was experiencing similar issues and if there is some tuning i can do or am i just missing something. thanx in advance. cheers, abs - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] kernel memory and zfs
Richard Elling wrote: The size of the ARC (cache) is available from kstat in the zfs module (kstat -m zfs). Neel wrote a nifty tool to track it over time called arcstat. See http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/Arcstat Remember that this is a cache and subject to eviction when memory pressure grows. The Solaris Internals books have more details on how the Solaris virtual memory system works and is recommended reading. -- richard The arcsize is also displayed in sysstat, which additionally shows a lot more information in a 'top' like fashion. Get it here: http://www.maier-komor.de/sysstat.html - Thomas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance
2008-03-27
Thread
Peter Brouwer, Principal Storage Architect, Office of the Chief Technologist, Sun MicroSystems
Hello abs Would you be able to repeat the same tests for the cifs in zfs option instead of using samba? Would be interesting to see how the kernel cifs versus the samba performance compare. Peter abs wrote: hello all, i have two xraids connect via fibre to a poweredge2950. the 2 xraids are configured with 2 raid5 volumes each, giving me a total of 4 raid5 volumes. these are striped across in zfs. the read and write speeds local to the machine are as expected but i have noticed some performance hits in the read and write speed over nfs and samba. here is the observation: each filesystem is shared via nfs as well as samba. i am able to mount via nfs and samba on a Mac OS 10.5.2 client. i am able to only mount via nfs on a Mac OS 10.4.11 client. (there seems to be authentication/encryption issue between the 10.4.11 client and solaris box in this scenario. i know this is a bug on the client side) when writing a file via nfs from the 10.5.2 client the speeds are 60 ~ 70 MB/sec. when writing a file via samba from the 10.5.2 client the speeds are 30 ~ 50 MB/sec when writing a file via nfs from the 10.4.11 client the speeds are 20 ~ 30 MB/sec. when writing a file via samba from a Windows XP client the speeds are 30 ~ 40 MB. i know that there is an implementational difference in nfs and samba on both Mac OS 10.4.11 and 10.5.2 clients but that still does not explain the Windows scenario. i was wondering if anyone else was experiencing similar issues and if there is some tuning i can do or am i just missing something. thanx in advance. cheers, abs Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Regards Peter Brouwer, Sun Microsystems Linlithgow Principal Storage Architect, ABCP DRII Consultant Office:+44 (0) 1506 672767 Mobile:+44 (0) 7720 598226 Skype :flyingdutchman_,flyingdutchman_l smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance
Have you turned on the Ignore cache flush commands option on the xraids? You should ensure this is on when using ZFS on them. /dale On Mar 27, 2008, at 6:16 PM, abs wrote: hello all, i have two xraids connect via fibre to a poweredge2950. the 2 xraids are configured with 2 raid5 volumes each, giving me a total of 4 raid5 volumes. these are striped across in zfs. the read and write speeds local to the machine are as expected but i have noticed some performance hits in the read and write speed over nfs and samba. here is the observation: each filesystem is shared via nfs as well as samba. i am able to mount via nfs and samba on a Mac OS 10.5.2 client. i am able to only mount via nfs on a Mac OS 10.4.11 client. (there seems to be authentication/encryption issue between the 10.4.11 client and solaris box in this scenario. i know this is a bug on the client side) when writing a file via nfs from the 10.5.2 client the speeds are 60 ~ 70 MB/sec. when writing a file via samba from the 10.5.2 client the speeds are 30 ~ 50 MB/sec when writing a file via nfs from the 10.4.11 client the speeds are 20 ~ 30 MB/sec. when writing a file via samba from a Windows XP client the speeds are 30 ~ 40 MB. i know that there is an implementational difference in nfs and samba on both Mac OS 10.4.11 and 10.5.2 clients but that still does not explain the Windows scenario. i was wondering if anyone else was experiencing similar issues and if there is some tuning i can do or am i just missing something. thanx in advance. cheers, abs Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.___ 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
