search for: siebenmann

We''re planning to build a ZFS-based Solaris NFS fileserver environment with the backend storage being iSCSI-based, in part because of the possibilities for failover. In exploring things in our test environment, I have noticed that ''zpool import'' takes a fairly long time; about 35 to 45 seconds per pool. A pool import time this slow obviously has implications for how fast

We''re currently designing a ZFS fileserver environment with iSCSI based storage (for failover, cost, ease of expansion, and so on). As part of this we would like to use multipathing for extra reliability, and I am not sure how we want to configure it. Our iSCSI backend only supports multiple sessions per target, not multiple connections per session (and my understanding is that the

...eantime. Is someone out there handy enough with the undocumented stuff to recommend a zdb command or something that will pound the delinquent pool into submission without crashing everything? Surely there''s a pool hard-reset command somewhere for the QA guys, right? thx jake Chris Siebenmann wrote: > You write: > | Now I''d asked about this some months ago, but didn''t get an answer so > | forgive me for asking again: What''s the difference between wait and > | continue in my scenario? Will this allow the one faulted pool to fully > | fail and...

Hello, We have a S10U5 server sharing with zfs sharing up NFS shares. While using the nfs mount for a log destination for syslog for 20 or so busy mail servers we have noticed that the throughput becomes severly degraded shortly. I have tried disabling the zil, turning off cache flushing and I have not seen any changes in performance. The servers are only pushing about 1MB/s of constant

If it''s of interest, I''ve written up some articles on my experiences of building a ZFS NAS box which you can read here: http://breden.org.uk/2008/03/02/a-home-fileserver-using-zfs/ I used CIFS to share the filesystems, but it will be a simple matter to use NFS instead: issue the command ''zfs set sharenfs=on pool/filesystem'' instead of ''zfs set

I have a test Solaris machine with 8 GB of memory. When freshly booted, the ARC consumes 5 GB (and I would be happy to make it consume more) and file-level prefetching works great even when I hit the machine with a lot of simultaneous sequential reads. But overnight, the ARC has shrunk to 2 GB (as reported by arcstat.pl) and file-level prefetching is (as expected at that level) absolutely

We have a situation where all of the spares in a set of pools have gone into a faulted state and now, apparently, we can''t remove them or otherwise de-fault them. I''m confidant that the underlying disks are fine, but ZFS seems quite unwilling to do anything with the spares situation. (The specific faulted state is ''FAULTED corrupted data'' in ''zpool

Suppose that you have a SAN environment with a lot of LUNs. In the normal course of events this means that ''zpool import'' is very slow, because it has to probe all of the LUNs all of the time. In S10U6, the theoretical ''obvious'' way to get around this for your SAN filesystems seems to be to use a non-default cachefile (likely one cachefile per virtual