Re: [zfs-discuss] Checksum question.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Brian McBride wrote: Customer: I would like to know more about zfs's checksum feature. I'm guessing it is something that is applied to the data and not the disks (as in raid-5). Data and metadata. For performance reasons, I turned off checksum on our zfs filesystem (along with atime updates). Because of a concern for possible data corruption (silent data corruption), I'm interested in turning checksum back on. When I do so, will it create checksums for existing files or will they need to be rewritten? And can you tell me the overhead involved with having checksum active (CPU time, additional space)? Turning the checksums off only disables them for user data. They are still enabled for filesystem metadata. I doubt that checksums will be computed for existing files until a block is copied/modified, but perhaps scrub can do that (I don't know). On modern AMD Opteron hardware it seems that CPU overhead for checksums is very low (e.g. 5%). I don't see much value from disabling both atime and checksums in the fileysystem. There is more value to disabling atime updates in NFS mounts. Zfs is pretty lazy about updates so atime just adds slightly to total I/O but without noticeably increasing latency. In a benchmark I did using iozone with 8k I/O blocks in ZFS filesystems with 128K block size, I see that with atime the random witers test results in 834.79 ops/sec but without it increases to 853.56 ops/sec. This is a very small performance improvement. Likewise, with checksums disabled (but atime enabled) I see 839.78 ops/sec. Using 8K I/O blocks in a filesystem with 8K block size resulted in a huge performance difference but unfortunately I failed to record the result. 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] Changing GUID
Hi, How difficult would it be to write some code to change the GUID of a pool? Thanks Peter ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Changing GUID
How difficult would it be to write some code to change the GUID of a pool? As a recreational hack, not hard at all. But I cannot recommend it in good conscience, because if the pool contains more than one disk, the GUID change cannot possibly be atomic. If you were to crash or lose power in the middle of the operation, your data would be gone. What problem are you trying to solve? Jeff ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Some basic questions about getting the best performance for database usage
Let ZFS deal with the redundancy part. I'm not counting redundancy offered by traditional RAID as you can see by just posts in this forums that - 1. It doesn't work. 2. It bites when you least expect it to. 3. You can do nothing but resort to tapes and LOT of aspirin when you get bitten. Thanks, that's exactly what I was asking about. 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] zpool i/o error
Can you try just deleting the zpool.cache file and let it rebuild on import? I would guess a listing of your old devices were in there when the system came back up with new stuff. The OS stayed the same. 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] Changing GUID
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Peter Pickford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, How difficult would it be to write some code to change the GUID of a pool? Not too difficult - I did it some time ago for a customer, who wanted it badly. I guess you are trying to import pools cloned by the storage itself. Am I close ? -- Regards, Cyril ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [caiman-discuss] swap dump on ZFS volume - updated proposal
Dave Miner wrote: jan damborsky wrote: ... [2] dump and swap devices will be considered optional dump and swap devices will be considered optional during fresh installation and will be created only if there is appropriate space available on disk provided. Minimum disk space required will not take into account dump and swap, thus allowing user to install on small disks. This will need to be documented (e.g. as part of release notes), so that user is aware of such behavior. I'd like to at least consider whether a warning should be displayed in the GUI about the lack of dump space if it won't be created, since it does represent a serviceability issue. This is a good suggestion - I think we might display the warning message on Summary screen before user actually starts installation process. In this case there is possibility to go back and change the disk size. Or we might display the warning dialog earlier - when user decides to leave Disk screen. I will check with Niall and Frank in order to work out the right solution from UI point of view. Thank you, Jan ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [caiman-discuss] swap dump on ZFS volume
Jeff Bonwick wrote: To be honest, it is not quite clear to me, how we might utilize dumpadm(1M) to help us to calculate/recommend size of dump device. Could you please elaborate more on this ? dumpadm(1M) -c specifies the dump content, which can be kernel, kernel plus current process, or all memory. If the dump content is 'all', the dump space needs to be as large as physical memory. If it's just 'kernel', it can be some fraction of that. I see - thanks a lot for clarification. Jan ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] swap dump on ZFS volume - updated proposal
Hi Robert, you are quite welcome ! Thank you very much for your comments. Jan Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello jan, Tuesday, July 1, 2008, 11:09:54 AM, you wrote: jd Hi all, jd Based on the further comments I received, following jd approach would be taken as far as calculating default jd size of swap and dump devices on ZFS volumes in Caiman jd installer is concerned. jd [1] Following formula would be used for calculating jd swap and dump sizes: jd size_of_swap = MAX(512 MiB, MIN(physical_memory/2, 32 GiB)) jd size_of_dump = MAX(256 MiB, MIN(physical_memory/4, 16 GiB)) jd User can reconfigure this after installation is done on live jd system by zfs set command. jd [2] dump and swap devices will be considered optional jd dump and swap devices will be considered optional during jd fresh installation and will be created only if there is jd appropriate space available on disk provided. jd Minimum disk space required will not take into account jd dump and swap, thus allowing user to install on small disks. jd This will need to be documented (e.g. as part of release notes), jd so that user is aware of such behavior. jd Recommended disk size (which now covers one full upgrade plus jd 2GiB space for additional software) will take into account dump jd and swap. jd Dump and swap devices will be then created if user dedicates jd at least recommended disk space for installation. jd Thank you very much all for this valuable input. jd Jan I like your approach and I like even more that you've listened to community - thank you. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] HELP changing concat to a mirror
Hi I have managed to get this: HOSTNAME$ zpool status pool: zp01 state: ONLINE scrub: resilver completed with 0 errors on Wed Jul 2 11:55:27 2008 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM zp01ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t2d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 But I wanted to get these in a mirror - I am unable to remove c0t3d0 from the pool. There is already data in the pool with filesystems mounted. So I do not wish to destroy the pool. Please help Mark This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] J4200/J4400 Array
Hi, According to the Sun Handbook, there is a new array : SAS interface 12 disks SAS or SATA ZFS could be used nicely with this box. There is an another version called J4400 with 24 disks. Doc is here : http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/j4200 Does someone know price and availability for these products ? Best Regards, Ben 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] J4200/J4400 Array
This array has not been formally announced yet and information on general availability is not available as far as I know. I saw the docs last week and the product was supposed to be launched a couple of weeks ago. Unofficially this is Sun's continued push to develop cheaper storage options that can be combined with Solaris and the Open Storage initiative to provide customers with options they don't have today. I'd expect the price-point to be quite a bit cheaper than the LC 24XX series of arrays. On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Ben B. wrote: Hi, According to the Sun Handbook, there is a new array : SAS interface 12 disks SAS or SATA ZFS could be used nicely with this box. There is an another version called J4400 with 24 disks. Doc is here : http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/j4200 Does someone know price and availability for these products ? Best Regards, Ben 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: [zfs-discuss] is it possible to add a mirror device later?
Hi Tommaso Have a look at the man page for zfs and the attach section in particular, it will do the job nicely. Enda Tommaso Boccali wrote: Ciao, the rot filesystem of my thumper is a ZFS with a single disk: bash-3.2# zpool status rpool pool: rpool state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM rpool ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c0t7d0AVAIL c1t6d0AVAIL c1t7d0AVAIL is it possible to add a mirror to it? I seem to be able only to add a new PAIR of disks in mirror, but not to add a mirror to the existing disk ... thanks tommaso Tommaso Boccali - CMS Experiment - INFN Pisa iChat/AIM/Skype/Gizmo: tomboc73 Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Pisa: +390502214216 Portable: +393472563154 CERN: +41227671545 Portable: +41762310208 ___ 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] Checksum question.
Brian McBride wrote: I have some questions from a customer about zfs checksums. Could anyone answer some of these? Thanks. Brian Customer: I would like to know more about zfs's checksum feature. I'm guessing it is something that is applied to the data and not the disks (as in raid-5). RAID-5 does not do checksumming. It does a parity calculation, but many RAID-5 implementations do not actually check the parity unless a disk reports an error. ZFS always checks the checksum, unless you disable it. At this point, I usually explain how people find faults in their SAN because ZFS's checksum works end-to-end. For performance reasons, I turned off checksum on our zfs filesystem (along with atime updates). Because of a concern for possible data corruption (silent data corruption), I'm interested in turning checksum back on. When I do so, will it create checksums for existing files or will they need to be rewritten? And can you tell me the overhead involved with having checksum active (CPU time, additional space)? To put this in perspective, in general, the time it takes to read the data from disk is much larger than the time required to calculate the checksum. But, you can also use different checksum algorithms, with varying strength and computational requirements. By default, ZFS uses a Fletcher-2 algorithm, but you can enable Fletcher-4 or SHA-256. If you are planning to characterize the computational cost of checksums, please add these to your test plan and report back to us :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] HELP changing concat to a mirror
On 02 July, 2008 - Mark McDonald sent me these 0,7K bytes:
Hi
I have managed to get this:
HOSTNAME$ zpool status
pool: zp01
state: ONLINE
scrub: resilver completed with 0 errors on Wed Jul 2 11:55:27 2008
config:
NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
zp01ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t2d0ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t3d0ONLINE 0 0 0
But I wanted to get these in a mirror - I am unable to remove c0t3d0
from the pool. There is already data in the pool with filesystems
mounted. So I do not wish to destroy the pool.
Currently your only option is to copy data somewhere else, destroy pool
and create a new one. Disk removal is being worked on I believe, but it
gets kinda complex when you have a bunch of snapshots, clones etc..
/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] [caiman-discuss] swap dump on ZFS volume
On Jun 30, 2008, at 19:19, Jeff Bonwick wrote: Dump is mandatory in the sense that losing crash dumps is criminal. Swap is more complex. It's certainly not mandatory. Not so long ago, swap was typically larger than physical memory. These two statements kind of imply that dump and swap are two different slices. They certainly can be, but how often are they? On my desktop, which has 16GB of memory, the default OpenSolaris swap partition is 2GB. That's just stupid. Unless swap space significantly expands the amount of addressable virtual memory, there's no reason to have it. Quite often swap and dump are the same device, at least in the installs that I've worked with, and I think the default for Solaris is that if dump is not explicitly specified it defaults to swap, yes? Is there any reason why they should be separate? Having two just seems like a waste to me, even with disk sizes being what they are (and growing). A separate dump device is only really needed if something goes completely wrong, otherwise it's just sitting there doing nothing. If you're panicing, then whatever is in swap is now no longer relevant, so over writing it is no big deal. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [caiman-discuss] swap dump on ZFS volume
David Magda wrote: Quite often swap and dump are the same device, at least in the installs that I've worked with, and I think the default for Solaris is that if dump is not explicitly specified it defaults to swap, yes? Is there any reason why they should be separate? I beleive there are technical limitations with ZFS Boot that stop them from sharing the same Zvol.. Having two just seems like a waste to me, even with disk sizes being what they are (and growing). A separate dump device is only really needed if something goes completely wrong, otherwise it's just sitting there doing nothing. If you're panicing, then whatever is in swap is now no longer relevant, so over writing it is no big deal. That said, with all the talk of dynamic sizing, If, during normal operation the swap Zvol has space allocated, and the Dump Zvol is sized to 0. Then during a panic, could the swap volume be sized to 0 and the dump volume expanded to whatever size? This at least while still requireing 2 Zvol's would allow (even when the rest of the pool is short on space) a close approximation of the old behavior of sharing the same slice for both swap and dump. -Kyle ___ 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] HELP changing concat to a mirror
Mark, If you don't want to backup the data, destroy the pool, and recreate the pool as a mirrored configuration, then another option it to attach two more disks to create 2 mirrors of 2 disks. See the output below. Cindy # zpool create zp01 c1t3d0 c1t4d0 # zpool status pool: zp01 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM zp01ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t4d0ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # zpool attach zp01 c1t3d0 c1t5d0 # zpool attach zp01 c1t4d0 c1t6d0 # zpool status zp01 pool: zp01 state: ONLINE scrub: resilver completed after 0h0m with 0 errors on Wed Jul 2 09:21:33 2008 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM zp01ONLINE 0 0 0 mirrorONLINE 0 0 0 c1t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirrorONLINE 0 0 0 c1t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors Mark McDonald wrote: Hi I have managed to get this: HOSTNAME$ zpool status pool: zp01 state: ONLINE scrub: resilver completed with 0 errors on Wed Jul 2 11:55:27 2008 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM zp01ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t2d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c0t3d0ONLINE 0 0 0 But I wanted to get these in a mirror - I am unable to remove c0t3d0 from the pool. There is already data in the pool with filesystems mounted. So I do not wish to destroy the pool. Please help Mark 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: [zfs-discuss] [caiman-discuss] swap dump on ZFS volume
David Magda wrote: On Jun 30, 2008, at 19:19, Jeff Bonwick wrote: Dump is mandatory in the sense that losing crash dumps is criminal. Swap is more complex. It's certainly not mandatory. Not so long ago, swap was typically larger than physical memory. These two statements kind of imply that dump and swap are two different slices. They certainly can be, but how often are they? If they are ZVOLs then they are ALWAYS different. Quite often swap and dump are the same device, at least in the installs that I've worked with, and I think the default for Solaris is that if dump is not explicitly specified it defaults to swap, yes? Correct. Is there any reason why they should be separate? You might want dump but not swap. They maybe connected via completely different types of storage interconnect. For dump ideally you want the simplest possible route to the disk. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [caiman-discuss] swap dump on ZFS volume
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM, David Magda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quite often swap and dump are the same device, at least in the installs that I've worked with, and I think the default for Solaris is that if dump is not explicitly specified it defaults to swap, yes? Is there any reason why they should be separate? Aside from what Kyle just said... If they are separate you can avoid doing savecore if you are never going to read it. For most people, my guess is that savecore just means that they cause a bunch of thrashing during boot (swap/dump is typically on same spindles as /var/crashh), waste some space in /var/crash, and never look at the crash dump. If you come across a time where you actually do want to look at it, you can manually run savecore at some time in the future. Also, last time I looked (and I've not seen anything to suggest it is fixed) proper dependencies do not exist to prevent paging activity after boot from trashing the crash dump in a shared swap+dump device - even when savecore is enabled. It is only by luck that you get anything out of it. Arguably this should be fixed by proper SMF dependencies. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on top of 6140 FC array
Depends on what benefit you are looking for. If you are looking ways to improve redundancy you can still benefit from ZFS a) ZFS snap shots will give you the ability to withstand soft/user errors. b) ZFS checksum... c) ZFS can mirror (synch or async) a 6140'lun to an other storage for increased redundancy d) You can put an other level of raid over 6140's internal raid to increase redundancy e) Use ZFS send recieve to backup data some other place. Best regards Mertol http://www.sun.com/ http://www.sun.com/emrkt/sigs/6g_top.gif Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212335 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Vassallo Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 3:23 AM To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: [zfs-discuss] zfs on top of 6140 FC array When set up with multi-pathing to dual redundant controllers, is layering zfs on top of the 6140 of any benefit? AFAIK this array does have internal redundant paths up to the disk connection. justin attachment: image001.gif___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] J4200/J4400 Array
Availibilty may depend on where you are located but J4200 and J4400 are available for most regions. Those equipment is engineered to go well with Sun open storage components like ZFS. Besides price advantage, J4200 and J4400 offers unmatched bandwith to hosts or to stacking units. You can get the price from your sun account manager Best regards Mertol Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212335 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben B. Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 2:49 PM To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: [zfs-discuss] J4200/J4400 Array Hi, According to the Sun Handbook, there is a new array : SAS interface 12 disks SAS or SATA ZFS could be used nicely with this box. There is an another version called J4400 with 24 disks. Doc is here : http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/j4200 Does someone know price and availability for these products ? Best Regards, Ben 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] Q: grow zpool build on top of iSCSI devices
Hi all. We currenty move out a number of iSCSI servers based on Thumpers (x4500) running both, Solaris 10 and OpenSolaris build 90+. The targets on the machines are based on ZVOLs. Some of the clients use those iSCSI disks to build mirrored Zpools. As the volumes size on the x4500 can easily be grown I would like to know if that growth in space can be propagated to the client zpools without the need for resyncing. Destroying the iSCSI targets is just fine as is importing/exporting pools. So far I managed to track the problem down to the good old partition table created by fdisk that seems to be one root cause for not seeing the added space after recreating the targets. The later was necessary to make sure the disk size matches the ZVOL size Any hints are greatly appreciated! Thomas - GPG fingerprint: B1 EE D2 39 2C 82 26 DA A5 4D E0 50 35 75 9E ED ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Some basic questions about getting the best performance for database usage
Christiaan Willemsen wrote: Hi Richard, Richard Elling wrote: It should cost less than a RAID array... Advertisement: Sun's low-end servers have 16 DIMM slots. Sadly, those are by far more expensive than what I have here from our own server supplier... ok, that pushed a button. Let's see... I just surfed the 4 major server vendors for their online store offerings without logging in (no discounts applied). I was looking for a 64 GByte 1-2U rack server with 8 internal disk drives. Due to all of the vendors having broken stores, in some form or another, it was difficult to actually get an exact, orderable configuration, but I was able to come close. Requirements: redundant power supplies, 8x 146 GByte 10k rpm disks, 64 GBytes of RAM, 4 cores of some type, no OS (I'll use OpenSolaris, thank you :-) All prices in USD. IBM - no 1-2U product with 64 GByte memory capacity, the x3650 line have only 12 slots available until you get to the 4U servers. Didn't make the first cut. But for the record, if you want it at 48 GBytes, $10,748, and if you could add 16 GBytes more, it would come in at around $12,450... not bad. HP - DL380 G5 looks promising. Site had difficulty calculating the price, but it cruised in at $23,996. Dell - PowerEdge 2970 seemed to be the most inexpensive, at first. But once configured (store showed configuration errors, but it seems to be a bug in the error reporting itself). $21,825. Sun - X4150 is actually 1U while the others are 2U. Store would only allow me to configure 60 GBytes -- 1 pair of DIMMs were 2 GByte. I'm sure I could get it fully populated with a direct quote. $12,645. The way I see it, for your solution Sun offers the best value by far. But more importantly, it really helps to shop around for these x64 boxes. I was quite surprised to find Sun's price to be nearly half of HP and Dell... -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] is it possible to add a mirror device later?
Tommaso Boccali wrote: Ciao, the rot filesystem of my thumper is a ZFS with a single disk: bash-3.2# zpool status rpool pool: rpool state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM rpool ONLINE 0 0 0 c5t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c0t7d0AVAIL c1t6d0AVAIL c1t7d0AVAIL is it possible to add a mirror to it? I seem to be able only to add a new PAIR of disks in mirror, but not to add a mirror to the existing disk ... As Edna and Robert mentioned, zpool attach will add the mirror. But note that the X4500 has only two possible boot devices: c5t0d0 and c5t4d0. This is a BIOS limitation. So you will want to mirror with c5t4d0 and configure the disks for boot. See the docs on ZFS boot for details on how to configure the boot sectors and grub. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [caiman-discuss] swap dump on ZFS volume
Mike Gerdts wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM, David Magda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quite often swap and dump are the same device, at least in the installs that I've worked with, and I think the default for Solaris is that if dump is not explicitly specified it defaults to swap, yes? Is there any reason why they should be separate? Aside from what Kyle just said... If they are separate you can avoid doing savecore if you are never going to read it. For most people, my guess is that savecore just means that they cause a bunch of thrashing during boot (swap/dump is typically on same spindles as /var/crashh), waste some space in /var/crash, and never look at the crash dump. If you come across a time where you actually do want to look at it, you can manually run savecore at some time in the future. Also, last time I looked (and I've not seen anything to suggest it is fixed) proper dependencies do not exist to prevent paging activity after boot from trashing the crash dump in a shared swap+dump device - even when savecore is enabled. It is only by luck that you get anything out of it. Arguably this should be fixed by proper SMF dependencies. Really ? Back when I looked at it, dumps were written to the back end of the swap device. This would prevent paging from writing on top of a valid dump. Furthermore when the system is coming up, savecore was run very early to grab core so that paging would not trash the core. -Sanjay -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ caiman-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [caiman-discuss] swap dump on ZFS volume
sanjay nadkarni (Laptop) wrote: Mike Gerdts wrote: On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM, David Magda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quite often swap and dump are the same device, at least in the installs that I've worked with, and I think the default for Solaris is that if dump is not explicitly specified it defaults to swap, yes? Is there any reason why they should be separate? Aside from what Kyle just said... If they are separate you can avoid doing savecore if you are never going to read it. For most people, my guess is that savecore just means that they cause a bunch of thrashing during boot (swap/dump is typically on same spindles as /var/crashh), waste some space in /var/crash, and never look at the crash dump. If you come across a time where you actually do want to look at it, you can manually run savecore at some time in the future. Also, last time I looked (and I've not seen anything to suggest it is fixed) proper dependencies do not exist to prevent paging activity after boot from trashing the crash dump in a shared swap+dump device - even when savecore is enabled. It is only by luck that you get anything out of it. Arguably this should be fixed by proper SMF dependencies. Really ? Back when I looked at it, dumps were written to the back end of the swap device. This would prevent paging from writing on top of a valid dump. Furthermore when the system is coming up, savecore was run very early to grab core so that paging would not trash the core. I'm guessing Mike is suggesting that making the swap device available for paging should be dependent on savecore having already completed it's job. -Kyle -Sanjay -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ caiman-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss ___ 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] [caiman-discuss] swap dump on ZFS volume
Kyle McDonald wrote: David Magda wrote: Quite often swap and dump are the same device, at least in the installs that I've worked with, and I think the default for Solaris is that if dump is not explicitly specified it defaults to swap, yes? Is there any reason why they should be separate? I beleive there are technical limitations with ZFS Boot that stop them from sharing the same Zvol.. Yes, there is. Swap zvols are ordinary zvols which still COW their blocks and leverage checksumming, etc. Dump zvols don't have this luxury because when the system crashes you are limited in the number of tasks that you can perform. So we solved this by changing the personality of a zvol when it's added as a dump device. In particular, we needed to make sure that all the blocks that the dump device cared about were available at the time of a system crash. So we preallocate the dump device when it gets created. We also follow a different I/O path when writing to a dump device allowing us to behave as if we were a separate partition on the disk. The dump subsystem doesn't know the difference which is exactly what we wanted. :-) Having two just seems like a waste to me, even with disk sizes being what they are (and growing). A separate dump device is only really needed if something goes completely wrong, otherwise it's just sitting there doing nothing. If you're panicing, then whatever is in swap is now no longer relevant, so over writing it is no big deal. That said, with all the talk of dynamic sizing, If, during normal operation the swap Zvol has space allocated, and the Dump Zvol is sized to 0. Then during a panic, could the swap volume be sized to 0 and the dump volume expanded to whatever size. Unfortunately that's not possible for the reasons I mentioned. You can resize the dump zvol to a smaller size but unfortunately you can't make it a size 0 as there is a minimum size requirement. Thanks, George This at least while still requireing 2 Zvol's would allow (even when the rest of the pool is short on space) a close approximation of the old behavior of sharing the same slice for both swap and dump. -Kyle ___ 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 mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Streaming video and audio over CIFS lags.
A few things to try: put in a different ethernet card if you have one, on one or more ends. Realtek works, but I've been unimpressed with their performance in the past. An Intel x1 pci express card will only run you around $40, and I've seen much better results with them. I first replaced my cheapest-from-the-shop-cheap 1Gbps network switch with a much better HP unmanaged switch, which didn't solve the problem. Then I went and bought an Intel PCI Gigabit Ethernet card for 25€ which seems to have solved the problem. I still need to do some testing though to verify. Is hardware checksum offloading enabled on either end? How does another pplication (e.g., scp) behave between the two machines? What's this? So far thanks for the responses so far, hopefully my Intel network card solved my problems =) - Juho Mäkinen 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] Streaming video and audio over CIFS lags.
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 13:16, Juho Mäkinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then I went and bought an Intel PCI Gigabit Ethernet card for 25€ which seems to have solved the problem. I still need to do some testing though to verify. Glad to hear it. Is hardware checksum offloading enabled on either end? How does another pplication (e.g., scp) behave between the two machines? What's this? Hardware checksum offloading is when the card calculates the checksum of the outgoing packets in hardware rather than letting the OS do it. It can give better performance than software (depending on configuration) but some cards do the checksums improperly, which can lead to poor performance since bad packets are dropped. On Solaris you can try the program here: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=31058tstart=150 to see if it's enabled; on Linux run ethtool -k ifname, or netstat -ant on Windows. scp is secure copy; it transfers files from one machine to another over an ssh tunnel. It may be processor-bound, especially since its encryption is single-threaded, but it's a good thing to compare to when CIFS is misbehaving. It's included with Linux and Solaris, and you can try WinSCP on Windows. That said, if it's working with the replacement card I wouldn't worry about it too much ;) So far thanks for the responses so far, hopefully my Intel network card solved my problems =) You're welcome, and I hope it keeps working for you. Will ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] J4200/J4400 Array
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 04:49:26AM -0700, Ben B. wrote: According to the Sun Handbook, there is a new array : SAS interface 12 disks SAS or SATA ZFS could be used nicely with this box. Doesn't seem to have any NVRAM storage on board, so seems like JBOD. There is an another version called J4400 with 24 disks. Doc is here : http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/j4200 -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] J4200/J4400 Array
So when are they going to release msrp? On 7/2/08, Mertol Ozyoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Availibilty may depend on where you are located but J4200 and J4400 are available for most regions. Those equipment is engineered to go well with Sun open storage components like ZFS. Besides price advantage, J4200 and J4400 offers unmatched bandwith to hosts or to stacking units. You can get the price from your sun account manager Best regards Mertol Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212335 Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben B. Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 2:49 PM To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: [zfs-discuss] J4200/J4400 Array Hi, According to the Sun Handbook, there is a new array : SAS interface 12 disks SAS or SATA ZFS could be used nicely with this box. There is an another version called J4400 with 24 disks. Doc is here : http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/coll/j4200 Does someone know price and availability for these products ? Best Regards, Ben 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 mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] /var/log as a single zfs filesystem -- problems at boot
I created a filesystem dedicated to /var/log so I could keep compression on the logs. Unfortunately, this caused problems at boot time because my log ZFS dataset couldn't be mounted because /var/log already contained bits. Some of that, to be fair, could be fixed by having some SMF services explicitly depend on svc:/system/filesystem/local:default that don't already, but I get the feeling there's more to it than that. Any recent insights into /var/log being its own filesystem? Thanks! Dan 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] /var/log as a single zfs filesystem -- problems at boot
Dan McDonald wrote: I created a filesystem dedicated to /var/log so I could keep compression on the logs. Unfortunately, this caused problems at boot time because my log ZFS dataset couldn't be mounted because /var/log already contained bits. Some of that, to be fair, could be fixed by having some SMF services explicitly depend on svc:/system/filesystem/local:default that don't already, but I get the feeling there's more to it than that. Any recent insights into /var/log being its own filesystem? I don't know if the order has changed with ZFS boot, but I had found a way to put lofi mounts of ISO files in the vfstab, and then had a similar problem when I then moved those ISO's so that they lived on a ZFS filesystem - the /etc/vfstab was processed much earlier than the ZFS ones. So one solution you might try (It worked for me) would be to set the zfs mount point to legacy, and then create an entry in /etc/vfstab so that it gets mounted earlier in the boot process. -Kyle Thanks! Dan 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: [zfs-discuss] /var/log as a single zfs filesystem -- problems at boot
Dan McDonald wrote: I created a filesystem dedicated to /var/log so I could keep compression on the logs. Unfortunately, this caused problems at boot time because my log ZFS dataset couldn't be mounted because /var/log already contained bits. Some of that, to be fair, could be fixed by having some SMF services explicitly depend on svc:/system/filesystem/local:default that don't already, but I get the feeling there's more to it than that. Any recent insights into /var/log being its own filesystem? I think this is a symptom of another problem. But you should be able to setup the installation on a separate /var/log (using JumpStart or LiveUpgrade) to get past this chicken-and-egg problem. Alternatively, you should be able to boot from CD/DVD and relocate the stuff in /var/log to a /var/log filesystem. Once the original /var/log directory contents are gone, it should work ok. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] evil tuning guide updates
I was making my way through the evil tuning guide and noticed a couple
updates that seem appropriate. I tried to create an account to be
able to add this into the discussion tab but account creation seems
to be a NOP.
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#RFEs
- 6533726 fixed in snv_79. No sign of it in S10 yet.
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#Solaris_10_8.2F07_and_Solaris_Nevada_.28snv_51.29_Releases
- No need to convert to hex. According to system(4):
set [module:]symbol {=, |, } [~][-]value
. . .
Operations that are supported for modifying integer
variables are: simple assignment, inclusive bitwise OR,
bitwise AND, one's complement, and negation. Variables
in a specific loadable module can be targeted for modif-
ication by specifying the variable name prefixed with
the kernel module name and a colon (:) separator. Values
can be specified as hexadecimal (0x10), Octal (046), or
Decimal (5).
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#RFEs_2
- 6429205 fixed in snv_87.
- Good explanation at
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-April/046937.html
--
Mike Gerdts
http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] is it possible to add a mirror device later?
Remember, you can not delete a device, so be careful what you add. 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] is it possible to add a mirror device later?
Orvar Korvar wrote: Remember, you can not delete a device, so be careful what you add. You can detach disks from mirrors. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] is it possible to add a mirror device later?
On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:41:18 -0700 Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Orvar Korvar wrote: Remember, you can not delete a device, so be careful what you add. You can detach disks from mirrors. So, a mirror of two disks becomes a system of two seperate disks? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv91 ++ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] is it possible to add a mirror device later?
dick hoogendijk wrote: On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:41:18 -0700 Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Orvar Korvar wrote: Remember, you can not delete a device, so be careful what you add. You can detach disks from mirrors. So, a mirror of two disks becomes a system of two seperate disks? zpool detach will detach a disk from a mirror. But it will no longer be part of the pool. If you want to add the detached disk to the pool as a stripe, then that would be a zpool detach followed by a zpool add Please take a careful look at the zpool add, attach, and detach options. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] /var/log as a single zfs filesystem -- problems at boot
Can't say about /var/log, but I have a system here with /var on zfs. My assumption was that, not just /var/log, but essentially all of /var is supposed to be runtime cruft, and so can be treated equally. 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] /var/log as a single zfs filesystem -- problems at boot
Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote: Can't say about /var/log, but I have a system here with /var on zfs. My assumption was that, not just /var/log, but essentially all of /var is supposed to be runtime cruft, and so can be treated equally. Not really. Please see the man page for filesystem for the details. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Accessing zfs partitions on HDD from LiveCD
to answer my own question -- yes, it worked beautifully (zpool import -f tank). Now to figure out why my network connection doesn't want to work after being set up the exact same way again :( 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] zpool i/o error
# rm /etc/zfs/zpool.cache # zpool import pool: zfs id: 3801622416844369872 state: FAULTED status: One or more devices contains corrupted data. action: The pool cannot be imported due to damaged devices or data. The pool may be active on on another system, but can be imported using the '-f' flag. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-5E config: zfs FAULTED corrupted data raidz1 ONLINE c5t1d0 ONLINE c7t0d0 UNAVAIL corrupted data c7t1d0 UNAVAIL corrupted data 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] zpool i/o error
I'll have to do some thunkin' on this. We just need to get back one of the disks, both would be great, but one more would do the trick. After all other avenues have been tried, one thing that you can try is to use the 2008.05 livecd and boot into the livecd without installing the OS. Import the pool and see if you have any better luck. If not, you can try the zdb -l again under the livecd as there have been bugs with that in the past on older versions of ZFS code. Will edit this message if I can think of something else to try. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
