Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Hitachi SAN, pool recovery
Thanks to all for your comments and sharing your experiences. In my setup the pools are split and then NFS mounted to other nodes, mostly Oracle DB boxes. These mounts will provide areas for RMAN Flash backups to be written. If I lose connectivity to any host I will swing the luns over to the alternate host and the NFS mount will be repointed on the Oracle node, so [u]hopefully[/u] we should be safe with regards pool corruption. Thanks again. Max -- 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] ZFS with Fusion-IO?
I agree, it looks like it would be perfect, but unfortunately without Solaris drivers it's pretty much a non starter. That hasn't stopped me pestering Fusion-IO wherever I can though to see if they are willing to develop Solaris drivers, almost everywhere I've seen these reviewed there have been comments about how good they would be for ZFS. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Can't remove zpool spare, status says faulted
When I issue the zpool remove command on the spare I receive no response, good or bad. Afterwards the drive is still listed as a spare in the zpool. Zpool shows the spare is listed as FAULTED. Any ideas? $ zpool status pool: datapool1 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM datapool1 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c8t1d2 ONLINE 0 0 0 c8t1d3 ONLINE 0 0 0 c8t1d4 ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c8t1d5 FAULTED corrupted data $ zpool remove datapool1 c8t1d5 $ -- 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] resilver being killed by 'zpool status' when root
I was doing a manual resilver, not with spares. I suspect still the issue comes from your script running as root, which is common for reporting scripts. -- 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] ZFS on Hitachi SAN, pool recovery
Just curiosity, why don´t use SC? Leal. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Which is better for root ZFS: mlc or slc SSD?
I was under the impression that MLC is the preferred type of SSD, but I want to prevent myself from having a think-o. I'm looking to get (2) SSD to use as my boot drive. It looks like I can get 32GB SSDs composed of either SLC or MLC for roughly equal pricing. Which would be the better technology? (I'll worry about rated access times/etc of the drives, I'm just wondering about general tech for an OS boot drive usage...) -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which is better for root ZFS: mlc or slc SSD?
Erik Trimble wrote: I was under the impression that MLC is the preferred type of SSD, but I want to prevent myself from having a think-o. I'm looking to get (2) SSD to use as my boot drive. It looks like I can get 32GB SSDs composed of either SLC or MLC for roughly equal pricing. Which would be the better technology? (I'll worry about rated access times/etc of the drives, I'm just wondering about general tech for an OS boot drive usage...) SLC is faster and typically more expensive. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which is better for root ZFS: mlc or slc SSD?
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Erik Trimble wrote: I was under the impression that MLC is the preferred type of SSD, but I want to prevent myself from having a think-o. SLC = Single level MLC = Multi level Since the SLC stores only a binary value rather than several possible encoded values it becomes more reliable but stores less data per cell. 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] Which is better for root ZFS: mlc or slc SSD?
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Erik Trimble wrote: I was under the impression that MLC is the preferred type of SSD, but I want to prevent myself from having a think-o. Depends on what one prefers, I guess. :-) SLC is prefered for performance reasons, MLC tends to be cheaper. I installed an SLC SSD in my Ferrari 3400. It was SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the 7200RPM spinning rust it replaced (which was no slouch itself). times/etc of the drives, I'm just wondering about general tech for an OS boot drive usage...) FWIW, I'd say go with SLC. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA CEO, My Online Home Inventory URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which is better for root ZFS: mlc or slc SSD?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was under the impression that MLC is the preferred type of SSD, but I want to prevent myself from having a think-o. I'm looking to get (2) SSD to use as my boot drive. It looks like I can get 32GB SSDs composed of either SLC or MLC for roughly equal pricing. Which would be the better technology? (I'll worry about rated access times/etc of the drives, I'm just wondering about general tech for an OS boot drive usage...) Depends on the MFG. The new Intel MLC's have proven to be as fast if not faster than the SLC's, but they also cost just as much. If they brought the price down, I'd say MLC all the way. All other things being equal though, SLC. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Which is better for root ZFS: mlc or slc SSD?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was under the impression that MLC is the preferred type of SSD, but I want to prevent myself from having a think-o. MLC - description as to why can be found in http://mags.acm.org/communications/200807/ See Flash Storage Memory by Adam Leventhal, page 47. -- 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] Which is better for root ZFS: mlc or slc SSD?
Tim wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was under the impression that MLC is the preferred type of SSD, but I want to prevent myself from having a think-o. I'm looking to get (2) SSD to use as my boot drive. It looks like I can get 32GB SSDs composed of either SLC or MLC for roughly equal pricing. Which would be the better technology? (I'll worry about rated access times/etc of the drives, I'm just wondering about general tech for an OS boot drive usage...) Depends on the MFG. The new Intel MLC's have proven to be as fast if not faster than the SLC's, That is not comparing apples to apples. The new Intel MLCs take the slower, lower cost MLC chips, and put them in parallel channels connected to an internal controller chip (think of RAID striping). That way, they get large aggregate speeds for less total cost. Other vendors will start to follow this idea. But if you just take a raw chip in one channel, SLC is faster. And, in the end, yes, the new intel SSDs are very nice. but they also cost just as much. If they brought the price down, I'd say MLC all the way. All other things being equal though, SLC. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS with Fusion-IO?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/24/2008 05:54:45 AM: I agree, it looks like it would be perfect, but unfortunately without Solaris drivers it's pretty much a non starter. That hasn't stopped me pestering Fusion-IO wherever I can though to see if they are willing to develop Solaris drivers, almost everywhere I've seen these reviewed there have been comments about how good they would be for ZFS. Maybe you should stop pestering, as I just received a cold call from them made possible by them harvesting info on this list. -Wade ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS dump and swap
The man page for dumpadm says this: A given ZFS volume cannot be configured for both the swap area and the dump device. And indeed when I try to use a zvol as both, I get: zvol cannot be used as a swap device and a dump device My question is, why not ? Thanks, John -- 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] Which is better for root ZFS: mlc or slc SSD?
In general, I think SLC is better, but there are a number of brand-new MLC devices on the market that are really fast; until a new generation of SLC devices show up, the MLC drives kind of win by default. Intel's supposed to have a SLC drive showing up early next year that has similar read performance to their new MLC device, but with 2x the write speed, but that's at least 3 months out. Scott On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Neal Pollack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was under the impression that MLC is the preferred type of SSD, but I want to prevent myself from having a think-o. I'm looking to get (2) SSD to use as my boot drive. It looks like I can get 32GB SSDs composed of either SLC or MLC for roughly equal pricing. Which would be the better technology? (I'll worry about rated access times/etc of the drives, I'm just wondering about general tech for an OS boot drive usage...) Depends on the MFG. The new Intel MLC's have proven to be as fast if not faster than the SLC's, That is not comparing apples to apples. The new Intel MLCs take the slower, lower cost MLC chips, and put them in parallel channels connected to an internal controller chip (think of RAID striping). That way, they get large aggregate speeds for less total cost. Other vendors will start to follow this idea. But if you just take a raw chip in one channel, SLC is faster. And, in the end, yes, the new intel SSDs are very nice. but they also cost just as much. If they brought the price down, I'd say MLC all the way. All other things being equal though, SLC. --Tim ___ 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] ZFS dump and swap
John Cecere wrote: The man page for dumpadm says this: A given ZFS volume cannot be configured for both the swap area and the dump device. And indeed when I try to use a zvol as both, I get: zvol cannot be used as a swap device and a dump device My question is, why not ? Swap is a normal ZVOL and subject to COW, checksum, compression (and coming soon encryption). Dump ZVOLs are preallocated contiguous space that are written to directly by the ldi_dump routines, they aren't written to by normal ZIO transactions, they aren't checksum'd - the compression is done by the dump layer not by ZFS. This is needed because when we are writing a crash dump we want as little as possible in IO the stack. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS dump and swap
Darren, Thanks for the explanation. Would you object if I opened a bug on the zfs man page to include what you've written here ? Thanks again, John Darren J Moffat wrote: John Cecere wrote: The man page for dumpadm says this: A given ZFS volume cannot be configured for both the swap area and the dump device. And indeed when I try to use a zvol as both, I get: zvol cannot be used as a swap device and a dump device My question is, why not ? Swap is a normal ZVOL and subject to COW, checksum, compression (and coming soon encryption). Dump ZVOLs are preallocated contiguous space that are written to directly by the ldi_dump routines, they aren't written to by normal ZIO transactions, they aren't checksum'd - the compression is done by the dump layer not by ZFS. This is needed because when we are writing a crash dump we want as little as possible in IO the stack. -- Darren J Moffat -- John Cecere Americas Technology Office / Sun Microsystems 732-302-3922 / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS dump and swap
John Cecere wrote: Darren, Thanks for the explanation. Would you object if I opened a bug on the zfs man page to include what you've written here ? I don't know if what I said is considered implementation detail or not. Feel free to log the bug but I can't say either way if it would be considered appropriate for the man page. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] web interface not showing up
mike wrote: On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Volker A. Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm... I run Solaris 10/sparc U4. My /usr/java points to jdk/jdk1.5.0_16. I am using Firefox 2.0.0.16. Works For Me(TM) ;-) Sorry, can't help you any further. Maybe a question for desktop-discuss? it's a java error on the server side, not client side (although there is a javascript error in every browser i tried it in, but probably unrelated or an error due to the java not executing properly) anyway - you did help me at least get the webconsole running. the zfs admin piece of it though is throwing the java error... Can you post the java error to the list? Do you have gzip compressed or aclinherit properties on your filesystems, hitting bug 6715550? http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-June/048457.html http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-June/048550.html -- James Andrewartha ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] web interface not showing up
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:37 PM, James Andrewartha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you post the java error to the list? Do you have gzip compressed or aclinherit properties on your filesystems, hitting bug 6715550? http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-June/048457.html http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-June/048550.html Loading the page in Firefox 2.x on Windows XP Pro, using URL https://192.168.1.202:6789/zfs/zfsmodule/Index I can login to the web console, my only option is zfs administration. I click on it, and the left frame displays a java error. The right frame is empty. Application Error com.iplanet.jato.NavigationException: Exception encountered during forward Root cause = [java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No enum const class com.sun.zfs.common.model.AclInheritProperty$AclInherit.restricted] Notes for application developers: * To prevent users from seeing this error message, override the onUncaughtException() method in the module servlet and take action specific to the application * To see a stack trace from this error, see the source for this page Generated Wed Sep 24 21:38:15 PDT 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# zfs get aclinherit tank NAME PROPERTYVALUESOURCE tank aclinherit restricted default Looks like changing that to passthrough worked. Thanks. I didn't really research this much. Not enough time, didn't -really- need it. But this will be fun to explore. Thanks for following up :) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS dump and swap
Darren J Moffat wrote: John Cecere wrote: The man page for dumpadm says this: A given ZFS volume cannot be configured for both the swap area and the dump device. And indeed when I try to use a zvol as both, I get: zvol cannot be used as a swap device and a dump device My question is, why not ? Swap is a normal ZVOL and subject to COW, checksum, compression (and coming soon encryption). Would there be no performance benefits from having swap read/write from contiguous preallocated space also? I do realize that nifty features like encryption might be lost in that case, but Im wondering if there's any performance to be gained? Then again if you're concerned about performance you need to just buy ram till you stop swapping all together, huh? -Kyle Dump ZVOLs are preallocated contiguous space that are written to directly by the ldi_dump routines, they aren't written to by normal ZIO transactions, they aren't checksum'd - the compression is done by the dump layer not by ZFS. This is needed because when we are writing a crash dump we want as little as possible in IO the stack. -- Darren J Moffat ___ 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] zpool file corruption
I have a strange problem involving changes in large file on a mirrored zpool in Open solaris snv96. We use it at storage in a VMware ESXi lab environment. All virtual disk files gets corrupted when changes are made within the files (when running the machine that is). The sad thing is that I've created about ~200Gb of random data in large files and even modified those files without any problem (using dd with skip and conv=notrunc options). I've copied the files within the pool and over the network on all network interfaces on the machine - without problems. It's just those .vmdk files that gets corrupted. The hardware is an Opteron desktop machine with a SIL3114 sata interface. Personally I have exactly the same interface at home with the same setup without problem. Only the other hardware differs (disks and so on). The disks are WD7500AACS, which is those with variable rotation speed 5400-7200. Could it be the disks? Could it be the disk controller or the rest of the hardware?? I should mention that the controller has been flashed with a non-raid bios. I could provide more information if needed! Is there anyone that have any ideas or suggestions? Some output: bash-3.00# zpool status -vx pool: testing state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data corruption. Applications may be affected. action: Restore the file in question if possible. Otherwise restore the entire pool from backup. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-8A scrub: scrub completed with 1 errors on Wed Sep 24 16:59:13 2008 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM testing ONLINE 0 016 mirrorONLINE 0 016 c0d1ONLINE 0 051 c1d1ONLINE 0 054 errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files: /testing/ZFS-problem/ZFS-problem-flat.vmdk Regards Mikael ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
