OK, one thing, any indexing under that version of ZFS is going to kill 
performance. Long standing issue. 

No backups? Did you bump your noggin? With your current setup you have improved 
your chances if your scrubbing regularly and if you only lose a drive at anyone 
time. And adding backup will drastically increase your chances. 

Not understanding ZFS is a BIG reason to stop and re-evaluate your priorities. 
It's amazing tech IF used properly. 

For what it sounds like you want from ZFS you should use mirrors. You can do 2 
mirrors of 2 drives each stripped under ZFS. This will increase the safety of 
your data. Even that should have a back up drive you move key files or better 
yet 'snapshots' onto. 

BUT you are going to have to understand ZFS to have any hope of not drowning in 
a pool of tears at some point. 

The new ZFS is under development but far more functional. Eliminating many of 
the old version issues listed numerous times throughout the forum. Either way 
you should ALWAYS understand the tech you rely on. Period. 

Please start learning with the word 'scrub' then the word 'snapshot' and how to 
swap a failed drive and do it all. Before committing your valuable data. Drives 
fail. Repeat. Drives fail.  Data must be restored at some point. ZFS is magical 
if you have planned ahead. I have recovered data assumed totally lost, YMMV. 

As for those drives are they 4k? If so you formatted your pool incorrectly. I 
don't have any of those so I don't have notes. Should be a simple Google search 
to find out. And the wiki has the instructions on 4k drive setup. 

Doing things right is what the wiki tries to help people with. The forum allows 
you to search for other peoples heartbreak to help prevent your own.  The 
wizards tracking this stuff have done a wonderful job. 

Hope this gets you rolling. I'd still check your cables as well. Normally I 
attach a drive, build a pool, test a lot, destroy pool. Add another drive. 
Repeat. Better safe than sorry. Manufacturers are not safe guarding your data. 

Jason
Sent from my iPhone 5S

> On May 20, 2014, at 9:37 AM, James Hoyt <djnati...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the detailed reply.
> 
> The slow performance is only when I'm using the RAID array so I assume
> without it connected means I can't use it means there is no slow
> performance. I would love instructions on how to scrub/clean the pool.
> Does it do a data wipe?
> 
> I was trying to think of a good backup solution. I have over 3 TBs of
> music in FLAC (lots of which I've paid for) and was hoping RAIDZ would
> take away the need for backups. I was thinking of buying a 4 TB drive
> and moving all my data on that and storing the drive offsite or
> something (in case of burglary, fires, etc). Having a single drive
> fail safe seems secure enough for me so I don't think incremental
> backups are needed.
> 
> As for running the latest beta ZFS, I didn't because the FAQ warned me
> not to. What are the differences? Would I have to format and rebuild
> the array?
> 
> The drives I have are four 3 TB Hitachi HDS723030BLE640.
> 
> I started navigating around my computer again, and the slowdown seems
> to be when going into folders with over 1000 files (for anything more
> it will take 1-3 minutes to just list the files in the directory).
> Also when I'm saving images from Firefox (no virtual machine running)
> it takes awhile to navigate the folder structure and sometimes not all
> the folders show, but they do in the Finder. So I wonder if this is an
> issue with programs not getting along with ZFS but the finder being
> fine with it.
> 
> Other things to note, I did disable Spotlight on the drive to make
> sure that isn't running, but I do have QuickSilver. Originally, I had
> QuickSilver indexing the drive, but the computer was practically
> unusable when it did that so I disabled that.
> 
> I look forward to any advice you guys may have.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James
> 
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Jason Belec <jasonbe...@belecmartin.com> 
>> wrote:
>> OK, doesn't look like RAM, processor etc., are the issue.... Let's work with 
>> that in mind for now.
>> 
>> When the pool and the associated drives are not connected, is the computer 
>> back to your expectation of normal? If so, you have one or more bad cables, 
>> one or more bad drives, or a bit of both, perhaps a bad or not quite capable 
>> power supply (solves 90% of all issues I come across). Maybe even an issue 
>> with the motherboard. Simplest thing, have you run a scrub on this pool? 
>> Clean?
>> 
>> The type of drives you have is not an issue, the make and known issues with 
>> said drives might be, but you didn't provide that info.
>> 
>> Using a raidcard and macJournaled terms, thrown out will not help you, your 
>> either ZFS or not. That said, you will not get the same speed from ZFS as 
>> from other raid setups, but you will get peace of mind on data integrity. I 
>> do hope you are also backing up data from the pool as well or eventually you 
>> will be in tears like so many others. A little forum searching under old and 
>> new versions of mac zfs will be helpful.
>> 
>> Since your getting started, once this is resolved it might be better to 
>> build/run this under the latest (yes its in development) Mac ZFS rather than 
>> the old tired version. It is quite a bit different, modern and makes many 
>> things a lot easier. (Insert legal disclaimer here) ;)
>> 
>> Interesting aside:
>> Dave mentioned an interesting point about wearing out SSDs, and I must admit 
>> I've had two such occurrences but only with a hackintosh and only with less 
>> than stellar drives. Seems that here around the mad science lab Intel SSDs 
>> are the most reliable long term. I have two of their originals still 
>> outlasting several other brands.
>> 
>> --
>> Jason Belec
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On May 19, 2014, at 10:05 AM, James Hoyt <djnati...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for all the replies guys =D
>>> 
>>> Sorry for lack of information. I'm running a Hackintosh with a 256 GB
>>> SSD and I sometimes run Windows 8.1 in a virtual machine via VmWare
>>> Fusion. The virtual image file is also located on the SSD. The only
>>> files I have on my zpool are data files. I don't run an OS or VM image
>>> from it. I have 12 GBs of RAM and a four core i5 processor. On the VM,
>>> I dedicate 6 GBs of RAM and 2 cores to it. It should be noted that I
>>> experience the slow down even when vmware is off it's just the drives
>>> act the slowest when the VM is running.
>>> 
>>> As for how I created the zpool, I followed the Getting Started guide with
>>> 
>>> zpool create murr raidz disk3s2 disk1s2 disk2s2 disk4s2
>>> 
>>> Please help... I really hope I don't have to recreate it, but it's
>>> looking that way.
>>> 
>>> Would it be better if I bought a RAID card and use Mac OS Journaled?
>>> Cost is an issue... the other issue is these are regular desktop 7200
>>> RPM drives.. not NAS drives.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> James
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Jason Belec <jasonbe...@belecmartin.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Dave has posted some good info. Reminds me why I prefer Virtualbox. ;) We 
>>>> do seem to need more detail though to really help the original OP.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Jason
>>>> Sent from my iPhone 5S
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 19, 2014, at 4:00 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <d...@jsonified.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: James Hoyt djnati...@gmail.com(mailto:djnati...@gmail.com)
>>>>> Reply: zfs-macos@googlegroups.com 
>>>>> zfs-macos@googlegroups.com(mailto:zfs-macos@googlegroups.com)
>>>>> Date: 19. Mai 2014 at 02:27:36
>>>>> To: zfs-macos@googlegroups.com 
>>>>> zfs-macos@googlegroups.com(mailto:zfs-macos@googlegroups.com)
>>>>> Subject: [zfs-macos] RAIDZ1 running slow =(
>>>>> 
>>>>>> So I setup a MacZFS RaidZ rather easily and was happy with myself. I had 
>>>>>> four 3 TB internal SATA drives in a zpool giving me around 9 TB of space.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> jamess-imac:~ sangie$ zpool status murr
>>>>>> pool: murr
>>>>>> state: ONLINE
>>>>>> scrub: none requested
>>>>>> config:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
>>>>>> murr ONLINE 0 0 0
>>>>>> raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0
>>>>>> disk3s2 ONLINE 0 0 0
>>>>>> disk1s2 ONLINE 0 0 0
>>>>>> disk2s2 ONLINE 0 0 0
>>>>>> disk4s2 ONLINE 0 0 0
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> errors: No known data errors
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So I Filled it up with about 5 GBs of data, mainly images and FLAC/music 
>>>>>> files and everything just drags on it. It takes a long time for files to 
>>>>>> be listed in finder and when I try to save an image from Firefox, it 
>>>>>> will just grind and grind while I try to navigate to a folder. I have 
>>>>>> vmware Fusion setup on my SSD (my main Mac drive) and doing anything on 
>>>>>> my zpool from Windows (like using MediaMonkey to organize FLAC files on 
>>>>>> it) uses up 100% of the CPU, freezing up my computer until the moves are 
>>>>>> done, even when moving around 30 files.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It’s not clear from this what your actual physical / virtual setup is. 
>>>>> Are you booting to OSX, and running Windows in a VM? Is the entire VM 
>>>>> then living on the raidz pool?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is my zpool okay? What's going on? Is this type of slowness normal or do 
>>>>>> I have a bad drive? How will MacZFS report to me if a drive in the array 
>>>>>> goes bad? I installed SMARTReporter Lite and it shows all drives as 
>>>>>> green. If I have some drives on SATA II and others on SATA III would 
>>>>>> that affect anything?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you want me to run any tests on it, I will do so gladly. Just let me 
>>>>>> know.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I’ve seen precisely this sort of behaviour with vmware fusion when:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. my SSD was getting worn down (really, I trashed it in 1 year, it was 
>>>>> the default apple one coming with early 2011 MBP)
>>>>> 2. the host OS & VM doesn’t have sufficient memory to run correctly 
>>>>> without swapping
>>>>> 3. the additional memory within the VM is pulled from a disk swap file, 
>>>>> which is by default in the same disk location as the VM itself
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anything less than 8GB of RAM is likely to be tight, VMs will of course 
>>>>> make this more complicated. Some notes on 
>>>>> http://artykul8.com/2012/06/vmware-performance-enhancing/ may help.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I found that my SSDs were being worn out with constant running of VMs; I 
>>>>> use them heavily in my work. The solution I found was to get max RAM in 
>>>>> my laptop + imac (16 vs 32 respectively), make a zfs based ramdisk with 
>>>>> lz4 compression, and copy the entire VM into the ramdisk before running 
>>>>> it. The copy phase only takes a few seconds from SSD, and it gives me a 
>>>>> very nice way to “roll back” to the previous image when required. I can 
>>>>> comfortably run Windows in a 20GiB ramdisk that fits inside a 10GiB zpool 
>>>>> with compression, even on the 16GiB laptop, and allocating 2GiB of ram 
>>>>> for the VM itself (10 + 2 for virtualisation & leave 4 for all of OSX 
>>>>> stuff).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here’s the zsh functions I use for this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> # create a 1GiB ramdisk
>>>>> ramdisk-1g () {
>>>>>  ramdisk-create 2097152
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> # the generic function for the specific one above
>>>>> ramdisk-create () {
>>>>>  diskutil eject /Volumes/ramdisk > /dev/null 2>&1
>>>>>  diskutil erasevolume HFS+ 'ramdisk' `hdiutil attach -nomount ram://$1`
>>>>>  cd /ramdisk
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> # make a zpool backed ramdisk instead of the HFS+ ones above. Main 
>>>>> advantage is compression. I get at least 2x more “disk” for RAM with this 
>>>>> approach.
>>>>> zdisk () {
>>>>>  sudo zpool create -O compression=lz4 -fm /zram zram `hdiutil attach 
>>>>> -nomount ram://20971520`
>>>>>  sudo chown -R $USER /zram
>>>>>  cd /zram
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> # self explanatory
>>>>> zdisk-destroy () {
>>>>>  sudo zpool export -f zram
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> —
>>>>> Dave Cottlehuber
>>>>> d...@jsonified.com
>>>>> Sent from my Couch
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>>>> "zfs-macos" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>>>> email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
>>>> Google Groups "zfs-macos" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/zfs-macos/78gD-0OzKMQ/unsubscribe.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>>>> zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "zfs-macos" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
>> Google Groups "zfs-macos" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/zfs-macos/78gD-0OzKMQ/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
>> zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> 
> --- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "zfs-macos" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"zfs-macos" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to