On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, michael schuster wrote:
> that's true most of the time ... unless free memory gets *really* low, then
> Solaris *does* start to swap (ie page out pages by process). IIRC, the
> threshold for swapping is minfree (measured in pages), and the value that
> needs to fall below t
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008, A Darren Dunham wrote:
>> I think these paragraphs are referring to two different concepts with
>> "swap". Swapfiles or backing store in the first, and virtual memory
>> space in the second.
>
> The "swap" area is mis-named since Solaris never "swaps"
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008, A Darren Dunham wrote:
>
> I think these paragraphs are referring to two different concepts with
> "swap". Swapfiles or backing store in the first, and virtual memory
> space in the second.
The "swap" area is mis-named since Solaris never "swaps". Some older
operating syste
I would hope at least it has that giant FSYNC patch for ZFS already present?
We ran into this issue and it nearly killed Solaris here in our Data Center as
a product it was such a bad experience.
Fix was in 127728 (x86) and 127729 (Sparc).
Well anyhow good to see U5 is out, hadn't even heard ab
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:28:45AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > I don't agree that if swap is used that performance will necessarily
> > suck. If swap is available, Solaris will mount /tmp there, which
> > helps temporary file performance. It is best to look at syst
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 12:16:11PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Richard Elling wrote:
> >
> > Don't worry about swapping on CF. In most cases, you won't be
> > using the swap device for normal operations. You can use the
> > swap -l command to observe the swap device usage
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Richard Elling wrote:
>
>> Don't worry about swapping on CF. In most cases, you won't be
>> using the swap device for normal operations. You can use the
>> swap -l command to observe the swap device usage. No usage
>> means that you can probably d
shri wrote:
> what call to be used in kernel to measure time taken for a operation if time
> quantum i s smaller than tick(frequency).
> i tried using ddi_get_lbolt at time t1 and t2.(at time t1 operation started
> and t2 it finished) but it always gives me zero(t2-t1).
>
>
Try get hi-res
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Richard Elling wrote:
>
> Don't worry about swapping on CF. In most cases, you won't be
> using the swap device for normal operations. You can use the
> swap -l command to observe the swap device usage. No usage
> means that you can probably do away with it. If you actually
Pascal Vandeputte wrote:
> I see. I'll only be running a minimal Solaris install with ZFS and samba on
> this machine, so I wouldn't expect immediate memory issues with 2 gigabytes
> of RAM. OTOH I read that ZFS is a real memory hog so I'll be careful.
>
Memory usage is completely dependent o
Pascal Vandeputte wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your input, I understand those numbers a lot better now!
> I'll look deeper into hardware issues. It's a pity that I can't get older
> BIOS versions flashed. But I've got some other hardware lying around.
>
> Someone suggested lowering the 35 iops defau
Thanks a lot for your input, I understand those numbers a lot better now! I'll
look deeper into hardware issues. It's a pity that I can't get older BIOS
versions flashed. But I've got some other hardware lying around.
Someone suggested lowering the 35 iops default, but I can't find any
informat
Great, superb write speeds with a similar setup, my motivation is growing again
;-)
It just occurs to me that I have a spare Silicon Image 3124 SATA card lying
around. I was postponing testing of these drives on my desktop because it has
an Intel ICH9 SATA controller probably quite similar to t
(the lt and gt symbols are filtered by the forum I guess; replaced with minus
signs now)
# format
Searching for disks...done
AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS:
0. c1t0d0 -DEFAULT cyl 45597 alt 2 hd 255 sec 126-
/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci8086,[EMAIL PROTECTED],2/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0
Thanks, I'll try installing Solaris on a 1GB CF card in an CF-to-IDE adapter,
so all disks will then be completely available to ZFS. Then I needn't worry
about different size block devices either.
I also find it weird that the boot disk is displayed differently from the other
two disks if I run
I see. I'll only be running a minimal Solaris install with ZFS and samba on
this machine, so I wouldn't expect immediate memory issues with 2 gigabytes of
RAM. OTOH I read that ZFS is a real memory hog so I'll be careful.
I've tested swap on a ZFS volume now, it's really easy so I'll try running
Pascal Vandeputte hotmail.com> writes:
>
> I'm at a loss, I'm thinking about just settling for the 20MB/s write
> speeds with a 3-drive raidz and enjoy life...
As Richard Elling pointed out, the ~10ms per IO operation implies
seeking, or hardware/firmware problems. The mere fact you observed
a l
17 matches
Mail list logo
