?
Cheers
carsten
--
Dr. Carsten Aulbert - Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics
Callinstrasse 38, 30167 Hannover, Germany
Phone/Fax: +49 511 762-17185 / -17193
http://www.top500.org/system/9234 | http://www.top500.org/connfam/6
CaCert Assurer | Get free certificates from http
Hi
On Sunday 19 December 2010 11:12:32 Tobias Lauridsen wrote:
sorry to bring the old one up, but I think it is better than make a new one
?? Are there some one who have some resilver time from a raidz1/2 pool
whith 5TB+ data on it ?
if you just looked into the discussion over the past day
Hi all
one of our system just developed something remotely similar:
s06:~# zpool status
pool: atlashome
state: DEGRADED
status: One or more devices is currently being resilvered. The pool will
continue to function, possibly in a degraded state.
action: Wait for the resilver to
Hi
On Saturday 18 September 2010 10:02:42 Ian Collins wrote:
I see this all the time on a troublesome Thumper. I believe this
happens because the data in the pool is continuously changing.
Ah ok, that may be, there is one particular active user on this box right now.
Interesting I've never
Hi
On Monday 06 September 2010 17:53:44 hatish wrote:
Im setting up a server with 20x1TB disks. Initially I had thought to setup
the disks using 2 RaidZ2 groups of 10 discs. However, I have just read the
Best Practices guide, and it says your group shouldnt have 9 disks. So
Im thinking a
On Sunday 15 August 2010 11:56:22 Joerg Moellenkamp wrote:
And by the way: Wasn't there a
comment of Linus Torvals recently that people shound move their
low-quality code into the codebase ??? ;)
Yeah, those codes should be put into the staging part of the codebase, so
that (more) people
Hi all,
sorry if this is in any FAQ - then I've clearly missed it.
Is there an easy or at least straight forward way to determine which of n ZFS
is currently under heavy NFS load?
Once upon a time, when one had old style file systems and exported these as a
whole iostat -x came in handy,
Hi
On Thursday 22 April 2010 16:33:51 Peter Tribble wrote:
fsstat?
Typically along the lines of
fsstat /tank/* 1
Sh**, I knew about fsstat but never ever even tried to run it on many file
systems at once. D'oh.
*sigh* well, at least a good one for the archives...
Thanks a lot!
Hi all,
on Friday night two disk in one raidz2 vdev decided to die within a couple of
minutes. Swapping drives and resilvering one at a time worked quite ok,
however, now I'm faced with a nasty problem:
s07:~# zpool status -v
pool: atlashome
state: ONLINE
status: One or more
Hi
On Wednesday 24 March 2010 17:01:31 Dusan Radovanovic wrote:
connected to P212 controller in RAID-5. Could someone direct me or suggest
what I am doing wrong. Any help is greatly appreciated.
I don't know, but I would get around this like this:
My suggestion would be to configure the
Hi all
On Thursday 18 March 2010 13:54:52 Joerg Schilling wrote:
If you have no technical issues to discuss, please stop insulting
people/products.
We are on OpenSolaris and we don't like this kind of discussions on the
mailing lists. Please act collaborative.
May I suggest this to both
Hi all,
it might not be a ZFS issue (and thus on the wrong list), but maybe there's
someone here who might be able to give us a good hint:
We are operating 13 x4500 and started to play with non-Sun blessed SSDs in
there. As we were running Solaris 10u5 before and wanted to use them as log
Hi Jörg,
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 16:40:50 Joerg Schilling wrote:
After that, the zpool did notice that there is more space:
zpool list
NAME SIZE USED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT
test 476M 1,28M 475M 0% ONLINE -
That's the size already after the initial creation,
On Thursday 21 January 2010 10:29:16 Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
zpool create -f testpool mirror c0t0d0 c1t0d0 mirror c4t0d0 c6t0d0
mirror c0t1d0 c1t1d0 mirror c4t1d0 c5t1d0 mirror c6t1d0 c7t1d0
mirror c0t2d0 c1t2d0
mirror c4t2d0 c5t2d0 mirror c6t2d0 c7t2d0 mirror c0t3d0
Hi
On Friday 22 January 2010 07:04:06 Brad wrote:
Did you buy the SSDs directly from Sun? I've heard there could possibly be
firmware that's vendor specific for the X25-E.
No.
So far I've heard that they are not readily available as certification
procedures are still underway (apart from
Hi all,
On Thursday 26 November 2009 17:38:42 Cindy Swearingen wrote:
Did anything about this configuration change before the checksum errors
occurred?
No, This machine is running in this configuration for a couple of weeks now
The errors on c1t6d0 are severe enough that your spare kicked
Hi Bob
On Friday 27 November 2009 17:19:22 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
It is interesting that in addition to being in the same vdev, the
disks encountering serious problems are all target 6. Besides
something at the zfs level, there could be some some issue at the
device driver, or underlying
Hi Ross,
On Friday 27 November 2009 21:31:52 Ross Walker wrote:
I would plan downtime to physically inspect the cabling.
There is not much cabling as the disks are directly connected to a large
backplane (Sun Fire X4500)
Cheers
Carsten
___
Hi all,
on a x4500 with a relatively well patched Sol10u8
# uname -a
SunOS s13 5.10 Generic_141445-09 i86pc i386 i86pc
I've started a scrub after about 2 weeks of operation and have a lot of
checksum errors:
s13:~# zpool status
pool: atlashome
Hi
Hua-Ying Ling wrote:
How do I discover the disk name to use for zfs commands such as:
c3d0s0? I tried using format command but it only gave me the first 4
letters: c3d1. Also why do some command accept only 4 letter disk
names and others require 6 letters?
Usually i find
cfgadm -a
Hi
a small addendum. It seems that all sub ZFS below /atlashome/BACKUP are
already mounted when /atlashome/BACKUP is tried to be mounted:
# zfs get all atlashome/BACKUP|head -15
NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
atlashome/BACKUP type filesystem
Hi
Mark J Musante wrote:
Do a zpool export first, and then check to see what's in /atlashome. My
bet is that the BACKUP directory is still there. If so, do an rmdir on
/atlashome/BACKUP and then try the import again.
Sorry, I meant to copy this earlier:
s11 console login: root
Password:
Hi Mark,
Mark J Musante wrote:
OK, looks like you're running into CR 6827199.
There's a workaround for that as well. After the zpool import, manually
zfs umount all the datasets under /atlashome/BACKUP. Once you've done
that, the BACKUP directory will still be there. Manually mount the
Hi Tim,
Tim wrote:
How does any of that affect an x4500 with onboard controllers that can't
ever be moved?
Well, consider one box being installed from CD (external USB-CD) and
another one which is jumpstarted via the network. The results usually
are two different boot device names :(
Q: Is
Hi all,
I was just reading
http://blogs.sun.com/dap/entry/zfs_compression
and would like to know what the experience of people is about enabling
compression in ZFS.
In principle I don't think it's a bad thing, especially not when the
CPUs are fast enough to improve the performance as the hard
Hi Richard,
Richard Elling wrote:
Files are not compressed in ZFS. Blocks are compressed.
Sorry, yes, I was not specific enough.
If the compression of the blocks cannot gain more than 12.5% space savings,
then the block will not be compressed. If your file contains
compressable parts
Darren, Richard,
thanks a lot for the very good answers. Regarding the seeking I was
probably mislead by the believe that the block size was like an
impenetrable block where as much data as possible is being squeezed into
(like .Z files would be if you first compressed and then cut the data
into
Hi,
i've followed this thread a bit and I think there are some correct
points on any side of the discussion, but here I see a misconception (at
least I think it is):
D. Eckert schrieb:
(..)
Dave made a mistake pulling out the drives with out exporting them first.
For sure also UFS/XFS/EXT4/..
Hi Richard,
Richard Elling schrieb:
Yes. I've got a few more columns in mind, too. Does anyone still use
a VT100? :-)
Only when using ILOM ;)
(anyone using 72 char/line MUA, sorry to them, the following lines are longer):
Thanks for the great tool, it showed something very interesting
Hi all,
We would like to replace one of our 3.5 inch SATA drives of our Thumpers
with a SSD device (and put the ZIL on this device). We are currently
looking into this with in a bit more detail and would like to ask for
input if people already have experience with single vs. multi cell SSDs,
Just a brief addendum
Something like this (or a fully DRAM based device if available in 3.5
inch FF) might also be interesting to test,
http://www.platinumhdd.com/
any thoughts?
Cheers
Carsten
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hi Jay,
Jay Anderson schrieb:
I have b105 running on a Sun Fire X4500, and I am constantly seeing checksum
errors reported by zpool status. The errors are showing up over time on every
disk in the pool. In normal operation there might be errors on two or three
disks each day, and sometimes
Hi
Qin Ming Hua wrote:
bash-3.00# zpool import mypool
^C^C
it hung when i try to re-import the zpool, has anyone see this before?
How long did you wait?
Once a zfs import took 1-2 hours to complete (it was seemingly stuck at
a ~30 GB filesystem which it needed to do some work on).
Hi all,
among many other things I recently restarted benchmarking ZFS over NFS3
performance between X4500 (host) and Linux clients. I've just iozone
quite a while ago and am still a bit at a loss understanding the
results. The automatic mode is pretty ok (and generates nice 3D plots
for the
Hi Bob.
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Here is the current example - can anyone with deeper knowledge tell me
if these are reasonable values to start with?
Everything depends on what you are planning do with your NFS access. For
example, the default blocksize for zfs is 128K. My example tests
Hi,
Brent Jones wrote:
Using mbuffer can speed it up dramatically, but this seems like a hack
without addressing a real problem with zfs send/recv.
Trying to send any meaningful sized snapshots from say an X4540 takes
up to 24 hours, for as little as 300GB changerate.
I have not found a
Hi Brent,
Brent Jones wrote:
I am using 2008.11 with the Timeslider automatic snapshots, and using
it to automatically send snapshots to a remote host every 15 minutes.
Both sides are X4540's, with the remote filesystem mounted read-only
as I read earlier that would cause problems.
The
Hi Marc (and all the others),
Marc Bevand wrote:
So Carsten: Mattias is right, you did not simulate a silent data corruption
error. hdparm --make-bad-sector just introduces a regular media error that
*any* RAID level can detect and fix.
OK, I'll need to go back to our tests performed
Hi Marc,
Marc Bevand wrote:
Carsten Aulbert carsten.aulbert at aei.mpg.de writes:
In RAID6 you have redundant parity, thus the controller can find out
if the parity was correct or not. At least I think that to be true
for Areca controllers :)
Are you sure about that ? The latest research I
Hi all,
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
My understanding is that ordinary HW raid does not check data
correctness. If the hardware reports failure to successfully read a
block, then a simple algorithm is used to (hopefully) re-create the
lost data based on data from other disks. The difference
Hi Bob,
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
AFAIK this is not done during the normal operation (unless a disk asked
for a sector cannot get this sector).
ZFS checksum validates all returned data. Are you saying that this fact
is incorrect?
No sorry, too long in front of a computer today I guess: I
Mam Ruoc wrote:
Carsten wrote:
I will ask my boss about this (since he is the one
mentioned in the
copyright line of smartctl ;)), please stay tuned.
How is this going? I'm very interested too...
Not much happening right now, December meetings, holiday season, ...
But thanks for
Hi all,
Miles Nordin wrote:
rl == Rob Logan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
rl the sata framework uses the sd driver so its:
yes but this is a really tiny and basically useless amount of output
compared to what smartctl gives on Linux with SATA disks, where SATA
disks also use the sd
Ross wrote:
Aha, found it! It was this thread, also started by Carsten :)
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=78921tstart=45
Did I? Darn, I need to get a brain upgrade.
But yes, there it was mainly focused on zfs send/receive being slow -
but maybe these are also linked.
Carsten Aulbert wrote:
Put some stress on the system with bonnie and other tools and try to
find slow disks and see if this could be the main problem but also look
into more vdevs and then possible move to raidz to somehow compensate
for lost disk space. Since we have 4 cold spares
Hi all,
We are running pretty large vdevs since the initial testing showed that
our setup was not too much off the optimum. However, under real world
load we do see quite some weird behaviour:
The system itself is a X4500 with 500 GB drives and right now the system
seems to be under heavy load,
Hi Miles,
Miles Nordin wrote:
ca == Carsten Aulbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ca (a) Why the first vdev does not get an equal share
ca of the load
I don't know. but, if you don't add all the vdev's before writing
anything, there's no magic to make them balance themselves out
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
You may have one or more slow disk drives which slow down the whole
vdev due to long wait times. If you can identify those slow disk drives
and replace them, then overall performance is likely to improve.
The problem is that under severe load, the vdev with the
.
is there a special signal I could send it?
Thanks for any hint
Carsten
--
Dr. Carsten Aulbert - Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics
Callinstrasse 38, 30167 Hannover, Germany
Phone/Fax: +49 511 762-17185 / -17193
http://www.top500.org/system/9234 | http://www.top500.org/connfam/6/list/31
Hi again,
brief update:
the process ended successfully (at least a snapshot was created) after
close to 2 hrs. Since the load is still the same as before taking the
snapshot I blame other users' processes reading from that array for the
long snapshot duration.
Carsten Aulbert wrote:
My
Hi
Miles Nordin wrote:
r == Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
r figures so close to 10MB/s. All three servers are running
r full duplex gigabit though
there is one tricky way 100Mbit/s could still bite you, but it's
probably not happening to you. It mostly affects home users
Hi Scott,
Scott Williamson wrote:
You seem to be using dd for write testing. In my testing I noted that
there was a large difference in write speed between using dd to write
from /dev/zero and using other files. Writing from /dev/zero always
seemed to be fast, reaching the maximum of ~200MB/s
Hi Ross
Ross wrote:
Now though I don't think it's network at all. The end result from that
thread is that we can't see any errors in the network setup, and using
nicstat and NFS I can show that the server is capable of 50-60MB/s over the
gigabit link. Nicstat also shows clearly that both
Hi all,
Carsten Aulbert wrote:
More later.
OK, I'm completely puzzled right now (and sorry for this lengthy email).
My first (and currently only idea) was that the size of the files is
related to this effect, but that does not seem to be the case:
(1) A 185 GB zfs file system was transferred
Hi Ross
Ross Smith wrote:
Thanks, that got it working. I'm still only getting 10MB/s, so it's not
solved my problem - I've still got a bottleneck somewhere, but mbuffer is a
huge improvement over standard zfs send / receive. It makes such a
difference when you can actually see what's
Hi Richard,
Richard Elling wrote:
Since you are reading, it depends on where the data was written.
Remember, ZFS dynamic striping != RAID-0.
I would expect something like this if the pool was expanded at some
point in time.
No, the RAID was set-up in one go right after jumpstarting the box.
Hi again
Brent Jones wrote:
Scott,
Can you tell us the configuration that you're using that is working for you?
Were you using RaidZ, or RaidZ2? I'm wondering what the sweetspot is
to get a good compromise in vdevs and usable space/performance
Some time ago I made some tests to find
Hi again,
Thomas Maier-Komor wrote:
Carsten Aulbert schrieb:
Hi Thomas,
I don't know socat or what benefit it gives you, but have you tried
using mbuffer to send and receive directly (options -I and -O)?
I thought we tried that in the past and with socat it seemed faster, but
I just made
send is so slow and
* how can I improve the speed?
Thanks a lot for any hint
Cheers
Carsten
[*] we have some quite a few tests with more zpools but were not able to
improve the speeds substantially. For this particular bad file system I
still need to histogram the file sizes.
--
Dr. Carsten
Hi
Darren J Moffat wrote:
What are you using to transfer the data over the network ?
Initially just plain ssh which was way to slow, now we use mbuffer on
both ends and socket transfer the data over via socat - I know that
mbuffer already allows this, but in a few tests socat seemed to be
Hi Thomas,
Thomas Maier-Komor wrote:
Carsten,
the summary looks like you are using mbuffer. Can you elaborate on what
options you are passing to mbuffer? Maybe changing the blocksize to be
consistent with the recordsize of the zpool could improve performance.
Is the buffer running full
Carsten
--
Dr. Carsten Aulbert - Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics
Callinstrasse 38, 30167 Hannover, Germany
Phone/Fax: +49 511 762-17185 / -17193
http://www.top500.org/system/9234 | http://www.top500.org/connfam/6/list/31
___
zfs-discuss
62 matches
Mail list logo
