Re: [zfs-discuss] Running on Dell hardware?
On 13 Oct 2010, at 18:30, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org [mailto:edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org] On Behalf Of Eric D. Mudama Out of curiosity, did you run into this: http://blogs.everycity.co.uk/alasdair/2010/06/broadcom-nics-dropping- out-on-solaris-10/ I personally haven't had the broadcom problem. When my system crashes, surprisingly, it continues responding to ping, answers on port 22 (but you can't ssh in), and if there are any cron jobs that run from NFS, they're able to continue. For some period of time, and eventually the whole thing crashes. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss I had that for months! Eventually I found that there was a memory leak with idmapd. I now have a cron that restarts it every night, problem solved. I only diagnosed the issue by emailing my self a 'top' output every 5 minutes via cron and watching it slowly creep up. It normally happens when I have allot of SMB traffic, there's a leak there somewhere! - Daniel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications
On 19 Aug 2010, at 19:42, Garrett D'Amore wrote: On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 21:25 +1200, Ian Collins wrote: On 08/19/10 08:51 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Ian Collinsi...@ianshome.com wrote: A quick test with a C++ application I'm working with which does a lot of string and container manipulation shows it runs about 10% slower in 64 bit mode on AMD64 and about the same in 32 or 64 bit on a core i7. Built with -fast. This may be a result of the way the libC you are using was compiled. Try to compare performance tests that only depend on code you did write by your own. Most of the C++ standard library (at least the containers part I'm using) is header only code, so it is mainly code I compile my self. Not using libC is somewhat impractical in real world applications! Not if the program isn't written in C++! The binary compatibility problems (plus a million other reasons) of C ++ make me strongly urge people not to choose C++ as the language for their project unless they are forced to by other constraints. (And then they will have to live with the consequent problems.) -- Garrett Out of interest, what language do you recommend? - Daniel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send to remote any ideas for a faster way than ssh?
Richard, On 19 Jul 2010, at 18:49, Richard Jahnel wrote: I heard of some folks using netcat. I haven't figured out where to get netcat nor the syntax for using it yet. I also did a bit of research into using netcat and found this... http://www.mail-archive.com/storage-disc...@opensolaris.org/msg05920.html sourcehost: zfs send | netcat $remotehost $remoteport desthost: netcat -l -p $myport | zfs receive Hope that helps, - Daniel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] preparing for future drive additions
Cindy, Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, I had though about that idea but (forgive me if I'm wrong) won't that leave me with 4TB of space free from my (eventual) 8TB's worth of drives? So 2 of the 2TB drives will be used just for mirroring. Where as with RaidZ I'd only lose one drive and have 3 usable (so 6TB, which is what I was going for) I can only fit 4 drives into the server chassis and I was hoping to get 6TB out of it. Thanks, - Daniel On 14 Jul 2010, at 21:28, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Daniel, No conversion from a mirrored to RAIDZ configuration is available yet. Mirrored pools are more flexible and generally provide good performance. You can easily create a mirrored pool of two disks and then add two more disks later. You can also replace each disk with larger disks if needed. See the example below. If you consider that disks are relatively inexpensive, then a mirrored configuration is a very good option. Thanks, Cindy # zpool create mpool mirror c2t6d0 c2t7d0 # zpool list mpool NAMESIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT mpool 136G 78.5K 136G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool status mpool pool: mpool state: ONLINE scan: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM mpool ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # zpool add mpool mirror c2t8d0 c2t10d0 # zpool list mpool NAMESIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT mpool 272G 138K 272G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool status mpool pool: mpool state: ONLINE scan: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM mpoolONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t10d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors On 07/14/10 13:58, Daniel Taylor wrote: Hello, I'm about the build a opensolaris NAS system, currently we have two drives and are planning on adding two more at a later date (2TB enterprise level HDD are a bit expensive!). Whats the best configuration for setting up these drives bearing in mind I want to expand in the future? I was thinking of mirroring the drives and then converting to raidz some how? It will only be a max of 4 drives, the second two of which will be bought later. Any ideas? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] preparing for future drive additions
Hello, I'm about the build a opensolaris NAS system, currently we have two drives and are planning on adding two more at a later date (2TB enterprise level HDD are a bit expensive!). Whats the best configuration for setting up these drives bearing in mind I want to expand in the future? I was thinking of mirroring the drives and then converting to raidz some how? It will only be a max of 4 drives, the second two of which will be bought later. Any ideas? -- 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] preparing for future drive additions
Cindy, Hmm, I've using RAIDZ-2 on a nexentastor elsewhere (although that has 15 disks) and having looked quite a bit I agree that mirroring is very flexible in comparison. I'll have to think about it and see if I can afford to lose the 2TB's. The other solution I can think off is to export the pool, redo everything with RAIDZ and then import the data? I presume that would work? But I would lose settings like samba shares? Thanks again! - Daniel On 14 Jul 2010, at 21:59, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Yes, that is true. If you have 4 2 TB drives, you would only get 4 TBs of usable disk space in a mirrored config. The problem I see with your potential RAIDZ config, if I understand it correctly, is that you can't add more disks to an existing RAIDZ config. You would need to create a 3 disk RAIDZ1 config with 1 spare or a 4 disk RAIDZ1 config. You can't attach more disks to an existing RAIDZ config. I understand that using all potential disk capacity is a priority, but I've been listening to this list for a long time and have come to appreciate the flexibility and reliability of mirrored configs. cs On 07/14/10 14:38, Daniel Taylor wrote: Cindy, Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, I had though about that idea but (forgive me if I'm wrong) won't that leave me with 4TB of space free from my (eventual) 8TB's worth of drives? So 2 of the 2TB drives will be used just for mirroring. Where as with RaidZ I'd only lose one drive and have 3 usable (so 6TB, which is what I was going for) I can only fit 4 drives into the server chassis and I was hoping to get 6TB out of it. Thanks, - Daniel On 14 Jul 2010, at 21:28, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Daniel, No conversion from a mirrored to RAIDZ configuration is available yet. Mirrored pools are more flexible and generally provide good performance. You can easily create a mirrored pool of two disks and then add two more disks later. You can also replace each disk with larger disks if needed. See the example below. If you consider that disks are relatively inexpensive, then a mirrored configuration is a very good option. Thanks, Cindy # zpool create mpool mirror c2t6d0 c2t7d0 # zpool list mpool NAMESIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT mpool 136G 78.5K 136G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool status mpool pool: mpool state: ONLINE scan: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM mpool ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # zpool add mpool mirror c2t8d0 c2t10d0 # zpool list mpool NAMESIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT mpool 272G 138K 272G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool status mpool pool: mpool state: ONLINE scan: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM mpoolONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t10d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors On 07/14/10 13:58, Daniel Taylor wrote: Hello, I'm about the build a opensolaris NAS system, currently we have two drives and are planning on adding two more at a later date (2TB enterprise level HDD are a bit expensive!). Whats the best configuration for setting up these drives bearing in mind I want to expand in the future? I was thinking of mirroring the drives and then converting to raidz some how? It will only be a max of 4 drives, the second two of which will be bought later. Any ideas? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] preparing for future drive additions
Sorry I think I used the wrong terms there, still learning, I think what I meant was send/receive rather than import/export. Would it be possible to use zfs send to backup the data somewhere (I'll work that bit out later), then receive it into the new pool? And if I did that would I keep the snapshots? This system is going to be our backup storage NAS, so losing the snapshots is actually worse than losing the extra 2TB. Thanks, - Daniel On 14 Jul 2010, at 23:06, Cindy Swearingen wrote: You can't transition a mirrored pool to a RAIDZ pool with an pool export/import. If you find any info that says you can, please send a pointer. You would need to do these important middle steps: If you transition from a mirrored configuration to a RAIDZ configuration, you would need to backup the data, destroy the pool, recreate the pool as a RAIDZ configuration and restore the data. cs On 07/14/10 16:01, Daniel Taylor wrote: Cindy, Hmm, I've using RAIDZ-2 on a nexentastor elsewhere (although that has 15 disks) and having looked quite a bit I agree that mirroring is very flexible in comparison. I'll have to think about it and see if I can afford to lose the 2TB's. The other solution I can think off is to export the pool, redo everything with RAIDZ and then import the data? I presume that would work? But I would lose settings like samba shares? Thanks again! - Daniel On 14 Jul 2010, at 21:59, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Yes, that is true. If you have 4 2 TB drives, you would only get 4 TBs of usable disk space in a mirrored config. The problem I see with your potential RAIDZ config, if I understand it correctly, is that you can't add more disks to an existing RAIDZ config. You would need to create a 3 disk RAIDZ1 config with 1 spare or a 4 disk RAIDZ1 config. You can't attach more disks to an existing RAIDZ config. I understand that using all potential disk capacity is a priority, but I've been listening to this list for a long time and have come to appreciate the flexibility and reliability of mirrored configs. cs On 07/14/10 14:38, Daniel Taylor wrote: Cindy, Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, I had though about that idea but (forgive me if I'm wrong) won't that leave me with 4TB of space free from my (eventual) 8TB's worth of drives? So 2 of the 2TB drives will be used just for mirroring. Where as with RaidZ I'd only lose one drive and have 3 usable (so 6TB, which is what I was going for) I can only fit 4 drives into the server chassis and I was hoping to get 6TB out of it. Thanks, - Daniel On 14 Jul 2010, at 21:28, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Daniel, No conversion from a mirrored to RAIDZ configuration is available yet. Mirrored pools are more flexible and generally provide good performance. You can easily create a mirrored pool of two disks and then add two more disks later. You can also replace each disk with larger disks if needed. See the example below. If you consider that disks are relatively inexpensive, then a mirrored configuration is a very good option. Thanks, Cindy # zpool create mpool mirror c2t6d0 c2t7d0 # zpool list mpool NAMESIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT mpool 136G 78.5K 136G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool status mpool pool: mpool state: ONLINE scan: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM mpool ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # zpool add mpool mirror c2t8d0 c2t10d0 # zpool list mpool NAMESIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT mpool 272G 138K 272G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool status mpool pool: mpool state: ONLINE scan: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM mpoolONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t10d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors On 07/14/10 13:58, Daniel Taylor wrote: Hello, I'm about the build a opensolaris NAS system, currently we have two drives and are planning on adding two more at a later date (2TB enterprise level HDD are a bit expensive!). Whats the best configuration for setting up these drives bearing in mind I want to expand in the future? I was thinking of mirroring the drives and then converting to raidz some how? It will only be a max of 4 drives, the second two of which will be bought later. Any ideas? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] preparing for future drive additions
Perfect. Thank you you've been a great help, I have lots to think about (and test) now! Thanks again, nice to know this list is so responsive! - Daniel On 14 Jul 2010, at 23:34, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Yes, if you created snapshots of your file systems and stored them remotely, you could receive them into the new pool. I recommend that you test this process a few times before attempting the transition. Thanks, Cindy On 07/14/10 16:21, Daniel Taylor wrote: Sorry I think I used the wrong terms there, still learning, I think what I meant was send/receive rather than import/export. Would it be possible to use zfs send to backup the data somewhere (I'll work that bit out later), then receive it into the new pool? And if I did that would I keep the snapshots? This system is going to be our backup storage NAS, so losing the snapshots is actually worse than losing the extra 2TB. Thanks, - Daniel On 14 Jul 2010, at 23:06, Cindy Swearingen wrote: You can't transition a mirrored pool to a RAIDZ pool with an pool export/import. If you find any info that says you can, please send a pointer. You would need to do these important middle steps: If you transition from a mirrored configuration to a RAIDZ configuration, you would need to backup the data, destroy the pool, recreate the pool as a RAIDZ configuration and restore the data. cs On 07/14/10 16:01, Daniel Taylor wrote: Cindy, Hmm, I've using RAIDZ-2 on a nexentastor elsewhere (although that has 15 disks) and having looked quite a bit I agree that mirroring is very flexible in comparison. I'll have to think about it and see if I can afford to lose the 2TB's. The other solution I can think off is to export the pool, redo everything with RAIDZ and then import the data? I presume that would work? But I would lose settings like samba shares? Thanks again! - Daniel On 14 Jul 2010, at 21:59, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Yes, that is true. If you have 4 2 TB drives, you would only get 4 TBs of usable disk space in a mirrored config. The problem I see with your potential RAIDZ config, if I understand it correctly, is that you can't add more disks to an existing RAIDZ config. You would need to create a 3 disk RAIDZ1 config with 1 spare or a 4 disk RAIDZ1 config. You can't attach more disks to an existing RAIDZ config. I understand that using all potential disk capacity is a priority, but I've been listening to this list for a long time and have come to appreciate the flexibility and reliability of mirrored configs. cs On 07/14/10 14:38, Daniel Taylor wrote: Cindy, Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, I had though about that idea but (forgive me if I'm wrong) won't that leave me with 4TB of space free from my (eventual) 8TB's worth of drives? So 2 of the 2TB drives will be used just for mirroring. Where as with RaidZ I'd only lose one drive and have 3 usable (so 6TB, which is what I was going for) I can only fit 4 drives into the server chassis and I was hoping to get 6TB out of it. Thanks, - Daniel On 14 Jul 2010, at 21:28, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Daniel, No conversion from a mirrored to RAIDZ configuration is available yet. Mirrored pools are more flexible and generally provide good performance. You can easily create a mirrored pool of two disks and then add two more disks later. You can also replace each disk with larger disks if needed. See the example below. If you consider that disks are relatively inexpensive, then a mirrored configuration is a very good option. Thanks, Cindy # zpool create mpool mirror c2t6d0 c2t7d0 # zpool list mpool NAMESIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT mpool 136G 78.5K 136G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool status mpool pool: mpool state: ONLINE scan: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM mpool ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors # zpool add mpool mirror c2t8d0 c2t10d0 # zpool list mpool NAMESIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT mpool 272G 138K 272G 0% 1.00x ONLINE - # zpool status mpool pool: mpool state: ONLINE scan: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM mpoolONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t10d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors On 07/14/10 13:58, Daniel Taylor wrote: Hello, I'm about the build a opensolaris NAS system, currently we have two drives and are planning on adding two more at a later date (2TB enterprise level HDD are a bit expensive!). Whats the best configuration for setting up these drives bearing in mind I
