search for: zfs_evil_tuning_guid

Hi, I read some articles on solarisinternals.com like "ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide" on http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide . They clearly suggest to disable cache flush http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#FLUSH . It seems to be the only serious article on the net about this subject. Could someone here sta...

Tuning should not be done in general and Best practices should be followed. So get very much acquainted with this first : http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide Then if you must, this could soothe or sting : http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide So drive carefully. -r

Hi, I am wondering if there is a guideline on how to configure ZFS on a server with Oracle database? We are experiencing some slowness on writes to ZFS filesystem. It take about 530ms to write a 2k data. We are running Solaris 10 u5 127127-11 and the back-end storage is a RAID5 EMC EMX. This is a small database with about 18gb storage allocated. Is there a tunable parameters that we can apply to

The big problem that I have with non-directio is that buffering delays program execution. When reading/writing files that are many times larger than RAM without directio, it is very apparent that system response drops through the floor- it can take several minutes for an ssh login to prompt for a password. This is true both for UFS and ZFS. Repeat the exercise with directio on UFS and there is no

Hi, I do have a disk array that is providing striped LUNs to my Solaris box. Hence I''d like to simply concat those LUNs without adding another layer of striping. Is this possibile with ZFS? As far as I understood, if I use zpool create myPool lun-1 lun-2 ... lun-n I will get a RAID0 striping where each data block is split across all "n" LUNs. If that''s

IHAC using ZFS in production, and he''s opening up some files with the O_SYNC flag. This affects subsequent write()''s by providing synchronized I/O file integrity completion. That is, each write(2) will wait for both the file data and file status to be physically updated. Because of this, he''s seeing some delays on the file write()''s. This is verified with

...ool. am i right, or could i encounter problems here? (the system is an NFS server, which means lots of synchronous writes (and therefore ZFS cache flushes), so i *really* want the performance benefit from using the nvram write cache.) - river. [1] http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#Cache_Flushes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFJNRJVIXd7fCuc5vIRAgDlAJ0boVf5zmvkRySeIHVumsKm3VSVhACffyOK POEMyzG8U2yQYeZr01uJ74Q= =9eBp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hello all... I''m migrating a nfs server from linux to solaris, and all clients(linux) are using read/write block sizes of 8192. That was the better performance that i got, and it''s working pretty well (nfsv3). I want to use all the zfs'' advantages, and i know i can have a performance loss, so i want to know if there is a "recomendation" for bs on nfs/zfs, or

I had to let this go and get on with testing DB2 on Solaris. I had to abandon zfs on local discs in x64 Solaris 10 5/08. The situation was that: * DB2 buffer pools occupied up to 90% of 32GB RAM on each host * DB2 cached the entire database in its buffer pools o having the file system repeat this was not helpful * running high-load DB2 tests for 2 weeks showed 100%

Hello, I received the following question from a company I am working with: We are having issues with our early experiments with ZFS with volumes mounted from a 6130. Here is what we have and what we are seeing: T2000 (geronimo) on the fibre with a 6130. 6130 configured with UFS volumes mapped and mounted on several other hosts. it''s the only host using ZFS volume (only

...to add redundancy to compensate for the fact that one controller would then be able to take out three drives.) I''ve considered adding a drive for the ZIL instead, but my experiments in disabling the ZIL (using the evil tuning guide at <http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#Disabl ing_the_ZIL_.28Don.27t.29>) didn''t show any speed increase. (I know it''s a bad idea run the system with ZIL disabled; I disabled it only to measure its impact on my write speeds and re-enabled it after testing was complete.) Current system: OpenSolaris dev release b132...

This may not be a ZFS issue, so please bear with me! I have 4 internal drives that I have striped/mirrored with ZFS and have an application server which is reading/writing to hundreds of thousands of files on it, thousands of files @ a time. If 1 client uses the app server, the transaction (reading/writing to ~80 files) takes about 200 ms. If I have about 80 clients attempting it @ once, it can

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

Under Solaris 10 u6 , No matter how I configured my ARECA 1261ML Raid card I got errors on all drives that result from SCSI timeout errors. yoda:~ # tail -f /var/adm/messages Jan 9 11:03:47 yoda.asc.edu scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice] Requested Block: 239683776 Error Block: 239683776 Jan 9 11:03:47 yoda.asc.edu scsi: [ID 107833 kern.notice] Vendor: Seagate

Hi all, just after sending a message to sunmanagers I realized that my question should rather have gone here. So sunmanagers please excus ethe double post: I have inherited a X4140 (8 SAS slots) and have just setup the system with Solaris 10 09. I first setup the system on a mirrored pool over the first two disks pool: rpool state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME

We are looking into the possibility of adding a dedicated ZIL and/or L2ARC devices to our pool. We are looking into getting 4 ? 32GB Intel X25-E SSD drives. Would this be a good solution to slow write speeds? We are currently sharing out different slices of the pool to windows servers using comstar and fibrechannel. We are currently getting around 300MB/sec performance with 70-100% disk busy.

I''m new so opensolaris and very new to ZFS. In the past we have always used linux for our database backends. So now we are looking for a new database server to give us a big performance boost, and also the possibility for scalability. Our current database consists mainly of a huge table containing about 230 million records and a few (relatively) smaller tables (something like 13 million

In several of the recent ZFS posts, multiple people have asked when this will be MFC'd to 7.x. This query has been studiously ignored as other chatter about whatever ZFS issue is discussed. So in a post with no other bug report or discussion content to distract us, when is it intended that ZFS be MFC'd to 7.x?

GigE wasn''t giving me the performance I had hoped for so I spring for some 10Gbe cards. So what am I doing wrong. My setup is a Dell 2950 without a raid controller, just a SAS6 card. The setup is as such : mirror rpool (boot) SAS 10K raidz SSD 467 GB on 3 Samsung 256 MLC SSD (220MB/s each) to create the raidz I did a simple zpool create raidz SSD c1xxxxx c1xxxxxx c1xxxxx. I have

I have historically noticed that in ZFS, when ever there is a heavy writer to a pool via NFS, the reads can held back (basically paused). An example is a RAID10 pool of 6 disks, whereby a directory of files including some large 100+MB in size being written can cause other clients over NFS to pause for seconds (5-30 or so). This on B70 bits. I''ve gotten used to this behavior over NFS, but