similar to: ZFS and Caching - write() syscall with O_SYNC

Dear Experts, IHAC who interested in Sun''s xVM server. They would like to know when the xVM server will be available on Solaris. Thanks. Regards, Ray

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 05:29:24PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 5:07 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > > These ones? > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2020-August/msg00078.html > > No, we had a bug when copying image from glance caused sanlock timeouts > because of the unpredictable page cache flushes. > > We

IHAC Who has an x4500(x86 box) who has a zfs root filesystem. They installed patches today, the latest solaris 10 x86 recommended patch cluster and the patching seemed to complete successfully. Then when they tried to reboot the box the machine would not boot? They get the following error NOTICE: spa_import_rootpool: error 5, Inc. All rights reserved. Cannot mount root on /pci at

IHAC that is asking the following. any thoughts would be appreciated Take two drives, zpool to make a mirror. Remove a drive - and the server HANGS. Power off and reboot the server, and everything comes up cleanly. Take the same two drives (still Solaris 10). Install Veritas Volume Manager (4.1). Mirror the two drives. Remove a drive - everything is still running. Replace the drive, everything

hi, If I understand correctly, full journalling mode gives better performance for applications that do a lot of updates in O_SYNC. Could you please explain how this is possible? Doesn't full data journalling do twice as many writes as meta data journalling? han

Hi Stephen, I would like to know the behavior of ext3 for a write() request used with O_SYNC for 64 K in term of disk access method: - is there a chance to have only one disk access (instead of 16 x 4 K corresponding to each mapped page ) or at maximum two in journaled mode ? - if this is possible then how can i force such a grouping of data in a single disk output ? NB: i disable cached write

On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 02:14:22AM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 5:36 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 05:29:24PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 5:07 PM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > These ones? > > > >

An update to the ext3 filesystem for 2.4 kernels is available at http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/ext3/ The diffs are against linux-2.4.7 and linux-2.4.6-ac5. The changelog is there. One rarely-occurring but oopsable bug was fixed and several quite significant performance enhancements have been made. These are in addition to the performance fixes which went into 0.9.3. Ted has put out a

James R Grinter wrote:- > >On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 09:39:37AM +0100, Mac wrote: >> On one previous occasion, the whole thing seemed to grind to a virtual >> halt, and we suspected (but couldn't prove) that a locking battle over >> (something like) secrets.tdb was to blame. > >(I recognise that symptom, see below) > >> Something that stands out is a huge

My application always needs to sync file data after writing. I don't want anything handing around in the kernel buffers. I am wondering what is the best method to accomplish this. 1. Do I use EXT2 and use fdatasync() or fsync()? 2. Do I use EXT2 and mount with the "sync" option? 3. Do I use EXT2 and use the O_DIRECT flag on open()? 4. Do I use EXT3 in full journaled mode,

I don't think that XFS is a desktop filesystem at all. This is from XFS FAQ: qoute ------------ Q: Why do I see binary NULLS in some files after recovery when I unplugged the power? If it hurts don't do that! * NOTE: XFS 1.1 and kernels => 2.4.18 has the asynchronous delete path which means that you will see a lot less of these problems. If you still have not updated to the 1.1

I have a test cluster running HA-NFS that shares both ufs and zfs based file systems. However, the behavior that I am seeing is a little perplexing. The Setup: I have Sun Cluster 3.2 on a pair of SunBlade 1000''s connecting to two T3B partner groups through a QLogic switch. All four bricks of the T3B are configured as RAID-5 with a hot spare. One brick from each pair is mirrored with VxVM

Given that the default journaling mode of ext3 (i.e. ordered), does not guarantee write ordering after a crash, is this journaling mode safe enough to use for a database such as Oracle? If so, how are out of sync writes delt with? Kind regards, Herta Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

Hi David, Thanks for your reply. > Hmm, so this "async" (sync=disabled?) ZFS tunable means that it > completely ignores O_SYNC and O_DIRECT and runs the entire workload in > RAM? I know nothing about ZFS, but that sounds like a mighty dangerous > setting for production deployments. Yes, you are correct - sync writes will flush to RAM, just like async, will stay in RAM for

I have a 24 x 1TB system being used as an NFS file server. Seagate SAS disks connected via an LSI 9211-8i SAS controller, disk layout 2 x 11 disk RAIDZ2 + 2 spares. I am using 2 x DDR Drive X1s as the ZIL. When we write anything to it, the writes are always very bursty like this: ool 488K 20.0T 0 0 0 0 xpool 488K 20.0T 0 0 0 0 xpool

Commit-ID: 3fefc6a404a970a911417d0345618a7e9abfef70 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=3fefc6a404a970a911417d0345618a7e9abfef70 Author: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> AuthorDate: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 00:43:25 +0000 Committer: H. Peter Anvin <hpa at linux.intel.com> CommitDate: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 17:45:36 -0800 [klibc] MIPS: Update archfcntl.h

Are you sure using conv=sync is what you want? I normally use conv=fdatasync, I'll look up the difference between the two and see if it affects your test. -b ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pat Haley" <phaley at mit.edu> > To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com> > Cc: "Ravishankar N" <ravishankar at redhat.com>,

I have a system with many processes writing to a common data file using pwrite. These processes are each writing to existing blocks in the file, not changing the file size, and the file has no holes. When the processes get going, they seem to bottleneck at log_wait_common (according to ps alnx). That is, one process is uninterruptible in log_wait_common, the rest are uninterruptible in down.

On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 04:43:12PM +0300, Nir Soffer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020, 16:16 Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > > I'm not sure if or even how we could ever do a robust O_DIRECT > > > > We can let the plugin an filter deal with that. The simplest solution is to > drop it on the user and require aligned requests. I mean this is very error

Hi Guys, I was wondering what our next steps should be to solve the slow write times. Recently I was debugging a large code and writing a lot of output at every time step. When I tried writing to our gluster disks, it was taking over a day to do a single time step whereas if I had the same program (same hardware, network) write to our nfs disk the time per time-step was about 45 minutes.