search for: dnlc

...TB over ~550k inodes right now. Backend serves data to 2-4 linux frontends running Apache (with local raid0 mod_disk_cache), rsync (looking through entire debian trees every now and then) and vsftp (not used much). There are (at least?) two types of performance issues we''ve run into.. 1. DNLC-through-ZFS doesn''t seem to listen to ncsize. The filesystem currently has ~550k inodes and large portions of it is frequently looked over with rsync (over nfs). mdb said ncsize was about 68k and vmstat -s said we had a hitrate of ~30%, so I set ncsize to 600k and rebooted.. Didn'...

...o All, Awhile back (Feb ''07) when we noticed ZFS was hogging all the memory on the system, y''all were kind enough to help us use the arc_max tunable to attempt to limit that usage to a hard value. Unfortunately, at the time a sticky problem was that the hard limit did not include DNLC entries generated by ZFS. I''ve been watching the list since then and trying to watch the Nevada commits. I haven''t noticed that anything has been committed back so that arc_max truly enforces the max amount of memory ZFS is allowed to consume (including DNLC entries). Has this be...

I''m moving some data off an old machine to something reasonably new. Normally, the new machine performs better, but I have one case just now where the new system is terribly slow. Old machine - V880 (Solaris 8) with SVM raid-5: # ptime du -kds foo 15043722 foo real 6.955 user 0.964 sys 5.492 And now the new machine - T5140 (latest Solaris 10) with ZFS

Running an mmap-intensive workload on ZFS on a X4500, Solaris 10 11/06 (update 3). All file IO is mmap(file), read memory segment, unmap, close. Tweaked the arc size down via mdb to 1GB. I used that value because c_min was also 1GB, and I was not sure if c_max could be larger than c_min....Anyway, I set c_max to 1GB. After a workload run....: > arc::print -tad { . . . ffffffffc02e29e8

...do a quick comparison between snv_117 and snv_122 on my workstation to see what kind of improvement there is. I wrote a small C program which does a stat() N times in a loop. This is of course a micro-benchmark. Additionally it doesn''t cover a case if doing stat() on not cached entries in DNLC has been improved too. So I run the program several times on each build after a fresh restart. These were the numbers I was getting on average: snv_117/ZFS# ptime ./stat_loop test 1000000 real 1.941163151 user 0.219955617 sys 1.707997800 snv_122/ZFS# ptime ./stat_loop tes...

Hi, My customer says: ------------------------------------ Application has NFS directories with millions of files in a directory, and this can''t changed. We are having issues with the EMC appliance and RPC timeouts on the NFS lookup. I am looking doing is moving one of the major NFS exports to as Sun 25k using VCS to cluster a ZFS RAIDZ that is then NFS exported. For performance I

ZFS works really stable on FreeBSD, but I''m biggest problem is how to control ZFS memory usage. I''ve no idea how to leash that beast. FreeBSD has a backpresure mechanism. I can register my function so it will be called when there are memory problems, which I do. I using it for ARC layer. Even with this in place under heavy load the kernel panics, because memory with KM_SLEEP

Has anyone else noticed a significant zfs performance deterioration when running recent opensolaris bits? My 32-bit / 768 MB Toshiba Tecra S1 notebook was able to do a full opensolaris release build in ~ 4 hours 45 minutes (gcc shadow compilation disabled; using an lzjb compressed zpool / zfs on a single notebook hdd p-ata drive). After upgrading to 2007-05-25 opensolaris release bits

We''re starting to grow our ZFS environment and really need to start standardizing our monitoring procedures. OS tools are great for spot troubleshooting and sar can be used for some trending, but we''d really like to tie this into an SNMP based system that can generate graphs for us (via RRD or other). Whether or not we do this via our standard enterprise monitoring tool or

Hi, ok I know zfs-fuse is still incomplete and performance has not been considered, but still, before I''m going to use it for my /home I wanted a rough estimate. Another benchmark already asserted that zfs by itself, on Solaris, is a very fast beast (http://cmynhier.blogspot.com/2006/05/zfs-benchmarking.html), faster than ext3 on Linux and also faster than UFS. Interestingly UFS seems

Hi. I''m all set for doing performance comparsion between Solaris/ZFS and FreeBSD/ZFS. I spend last few weeks on FreeBSD/ZFS optimizations and I think I''m ready. The machine is 1xQuad-core DELL PowerEdge 1950, 2GB RAM, 15 x 74GB-FC-10K accesses via 2x2Gbit FC links. Unfortunately the links to disks are the bottleneck, so I''m going to use not more than 4 disks, probably.

We are using MySQL, and love the idea of using zfs for this. We are used to using Direct I/O to bypass file system caching (let the DB do this). Does this exist for zfs? This message posted from opensolaris.org

...uv`hb;t_SU|UPJD&<=E4v9Q*%HDm)2%dwF1tbK*N1Nj0=J zNZF%6v`;5l*%znwC<UlWrH+2Sby3FoXPG>jINSrz>fn2<`*qwtY$1fp)hngKay7jU z-*swwy(;t&6xN$^d7tj~dVT9;T!rMfr$WRUD3<DbD66_3Ltn}-^6Mg*%_{b~;aL;O ztPvi_VGzRx`PpA;VyVnbcB0Hr6f>(BYOA{}9<>#Lt!QI=#p5d4*x(tCtvCW3LD|^) zir#zCdPUu>d3}dnLc(u?AlTH|06l4!<or#Yx2QR#sdKTKQ%zZ)g!+n at U(CPhK??SS zC*##JiM^C-=91Y+pL&X9-S($c+3?&BIopFmj(KrtNF?|^%K3m?Og<pX`2_@&e>+Aw zPRm)_yYIw!@-V$L7_#riEL4t!xK+ApRHO?{q>BluT8&h#AU!h@=|T%>s#k6ARi*R> zwW+W{O+Bq9pH?L_5DDY7T4Zswn?+MoLZ?y0qG&gZrKYrA(mesM?*V>XKZvIFaMNns zw7O{8...