Thanks for the reply.
On 11/1/2011 11:03 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
On Oct 26, 2011, at 7:56 PM, weiliam.hong wrote:
Questions:
1. Why does SG SAS drives degrade to<10 MB/s while WD RE4 remain consistent
at>100MB/s after 10-15 min?
2. Why does SG SAS drive show only 70+ MB/s where is the publis
On Oct 26, 2011, at 7:56 PM, weiliam.hong wrote:
>
> Questions:
> 1. Why does SG SAS drives degrade to <10 MB/s while WD RE4 remain consistent
> at >100MB/s after 10-15 min?
> 2. Why does SG SAS drive show only 70+ MB/s where is the published figures
> are > 100MB/s refer here?
Are the SAS driv
Thanks for the reply.
Some background.. The server is fresh installed. Right before running
the tests, the pools are newly created.
Some comments below
On 10/31/2011 10:33 PM, Paul Kraus wrote:
A couple points in line below ...
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:56 PM, weiliam.hong wrote:
I
A couple points in line below ...
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 10:56 PM, weiliam.hong wrote:
> I have a fresh installation of OI151a:
> - SM X8DTH, 12GB RAM, LSI 9211-8i (latest IT-mode firmware)
> - pool_A : SG ES.2 Constellation (SAS)
> - pool_B : WD RE4 (SATA)
> - no settings in /etc/system
> Loa
ate: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:33:25 -0700
>> From: Erik Trimble
>> To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
>> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Poor relative performance of SAS over SATA drives
>>
>>
>> It occurs to me that your filesystems may not be in the same state.
>>
.
>-- Original Message --
>Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:33:25 -0700
>From: Erik Trimble
>To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
>Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Poor relative performance of SAS over SATA drives
>
>
>It occurs to me that your filesystems may not be in the same state.
>
&
It occurs to me that your filesystems may not be in the same state.
That is, destroy both pools. Recreate them, and run the tests. This
will eliminate any possibility of allocation issues.
-Erik
On 10/27/2011 10:37 AM, weiliam.hong wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the replies. In the beginning, I onl
Hi,
Thanks for the replies. In the beginning, I only had SAS drives
installed when I observed the behavior, the SATA drives were added later
for comparison and troubleshooting.
The slow behavior is observed only after 10-15mins of running dd where
the file size is about 15GB, then the throug
if you get rid of the HBA and log device, and run with ZIL
> disabled (if your work load is compatible with a disabled ZIL.)
By "get rid of the HBA" I assume you mean put in a battery-backed RAID
card instead?
-J
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discus
On 10/27/11 07:03 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of weiliam.hong
3. All 4 drives are connected to a single HBA, so I assume the mpt_sas
driver
is used. Are SAS and SATA drives handled differently ?
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of weiliam.hong
>
> 3. All 4 drives are connected to a single HBA, so I assume the mpt_sas
driver
> is used. Are SAS and SATA drives handled differently ?
If they're all on the same HBA, they may
Greetings,
I have a fresh installation of OI151a:
- SM X8DTH, 12GB RAM, LSI 9211-8i (latest IT-mode firmware)
- pool_A : SG ES.2 Constellation (SAS)
- pool_B : WD RE4 (SATA)
- no settings in /etc/system
*zpool status output*
---
admin@openindiana:~# zpool status
pool: pool_A
12 matches
Mail list logo
