similar to: ZFS+native SATA

G''day, all, So, I''ve decided to migrate my home server from Linux+swRAID+LVM to Solaris+ZFS, because it seems to hold much better promise for data integrity, which is my primary concern. However, naturally, I decided to do some benchmarks in the process, and I don''t understand why the results are what they are. I though I had a reasonable understanding of ZFS, but now

I'm setting up a new fileserver. It has two RAID controllers, a PERC 3/DI providing mirrored system disks and a PERC 3/DC providing a 1TB RAID5 volume consisting of eight 144GB U160 drives. This will serve NFS, Samba and sftp clients for about 200 users. The logical drive was created with the following settings: RAID = 5 stripe size = 32kb write policy = wrback read policy =

I can't seem to get the read and write performance better than approximately 40MB/s on an ext2 file system. IMO, this is horrible performance for a 6-drive, hardware RAID 5 array. Please have a look at what I'm doing and let me know if anybody has any suggestions on how to improve the performance... System specs: ----------------- 2 x 2.8GHz Xeons 6GB RAM 1 3ware 9500S-12 2 x 6-drive,

Hi all, I''ve got a solaris 10 running 9/10 on a T3. It''s an oracle box with 128GB memory RIght now oracle . I''ve been trying to load test the box with bonnie++. I can seem to get 80 to 90 K writes, but can''t seem to get more than a couple K for writes. Any suggestions? Or should I take this to a bonnie++ mailing list? Any help is appreciated. I''m kinda

I have just purchased an HP ProLiant HP ML110 G5 server and install ed CentOS 5.2 x86_64 on it. It has the following spec: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU 3065 @ 2.33GHz 4GB ECC memory 4 x 250GB SATA hard disks running at 1.5GB/s Onboard RAID controller is enabled but at the moment I have used mdadm to configure the array. RAID bus controller: Intel Corporation 82801 SATA RAID Controller For a simple

Hi, We have a number of 4200''s setup using a combination of an SVM 4 way mirror and a ZFS raidz stripe. Each disk (of 4) is divided up like this / 6GB UFS s0 Swap 8GB s1 /var 6GB UFS s3 Metadb 50MB UFS s4 /data 48GB ZFS s5 For SVM we do a 4 way mirror on /,swap, and /var So we have 3 SVM mirrors d0=root (sub mirrors d10, d20, d30, d40) d1=swap (sub mirrors d11, d21,d31,d41)

I run a decent amount of 3ware hardware, all under centos-4. There seems to be some sort of fundamental disagreement between ext3 and 3ware's hardware RAID5 mode that trashes write performance. As a representative example, one current setup is 2 9550SX-12 boards in hardware RAID5 mode (256KB stripe size) with a software RAID0 stripe on top (also 256KB chunks). bonnie++ results look

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi, i have two systems, A (Solaris 10 update 5) and B (Solaris 10 update 6). i''m using ''zfs send -i'' to replicate changes on A to B. however, the ''zfs recv'' on B is running extremely slowly. if i run the zfs send on A and redirect output to a file, it sends at 2MB/sec. but when i use ''zfs send

Given a 1.6TB ZFS Z-Raid consisting 6 disks: And a system that does an extreme amount of small /(<20K) /random reads /(more than twice as many reads as writes) / 1) What performance gains, if any does Z-Raid offer over other RAID or Large filesystem configurations? 2) What is any hindrance is Z-Raid to this configuration, given the complete randomness and size of these accesses? Would

What is the best write performance improvement anyone has seen (if any) on a ZFS stripe over EMC SAN? I''d be interested to hear results for both - striped and non-striped EMC config.

I have two identical servers. The only difference is that the first one has Maxtor 250G drives and the second one has Seagate 320G drives. OS: CentOS-4.4 (fully patched) CPU: dual Opteron 280 Memory: 16GB Raid card: 3ware 9550Sx-8LP Raid volume: 4-disk Raid 5 with NCQ and Write Cache enabled On the first server I have decent performance. Nothing spectacular, but good enough. The second one

I have two identical servers. The only difference is that the first one has Maxtor 250G drives and the second one has Seagate 320G drives. OS: CentOS-4.4 (fully patched) CPU: dual Opteron 280 Memory: 16GB Raid card: 3ware 9550Sx-8LP Raid volume: 4-disk Raid 5 with NCQ and Write Cache enabled On the first server I have decent performance. Nothing spectacular, but good enough. The second one

On Wed 07/01/09 20:31 , Carsten Aulbert carsten.aulbert at aei.mpg.de sent: > Brent Jones wrote: > > > > Using mbuffer can speed it up dramatically, but > > this seems like a hack> without addressing a real problem with zfs > > send/recv.> Trying to send any meaningful sized snapshots > > from say an X4540 takes> up to 24 hours, for as little as 300GB

On 9/4/07 4:34 PM, "Richard Elling" <Richard.Elling at Sun.COM> wrote: > Hi Andy, > my comments below... > note that I didn''t see zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org in the CC for the > original... > > Andy Lubel wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I have been asked to implement a zfs based solution using storedge 6130 and >> im chasing my own

# uname -a Linux testbox 2.6.18-194.el5 #1 SMP Tue Mar 16 21:52:39 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux # rpm -qa|grep zfs zfs-test-0.5.2-1 zfs-modules-0.5.2-1_2.6.18_194.el5 zfs-0.5.2-1 zfs-modules-devel-0.5.2-1_2.6.18_194.el5 zfs-devel-0.5.2-1 # zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT pool1 120K 228G 21K /pool1 pool1/fs1 21K 228G 21K /vik [root at

hi there, since i am really new to zfs, i got 2 important questions for starting. i got a nas up and running zfs in stripe mode with 2x 1,5tb hdd. my question for future proof would be, if i could add just another drive to the pool and zfs can integrate it flawlessly? and second if this hdd could also be another size than 1,5tb? so could i put in 2tb also and integrate it? thanks in advance

Hi. bash-3.00# uname -a SunOS nfs-14-2.srv 5.10 Generic_125101-03 i86pc i386 i86pc I created first zpool (stripe of 85 disks) and did some simple stress testing - everything seems almost alright (~700MB seq reads, ~430 seqential writes). Then I destroyed pool and put SVM stripe on top the same disks utilizing the fact that zfs already put EFI and s0 represents almost entire disk. The on top on

hail, I have a 7-stable: [matheus@xxx /usr/home/matheus]$ uname -a FreeBSD xxx 7.0-STABLE FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE #2: Sun Jul 6 15:03:26 BRT 2008 root@lamneth:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/xxx_7 i386 and there exists three geom things. gconcat status Name Status Components concat/concat0 UP ad4 ad5 gmirror status Name Status Components

Tony?s performance sounds significantly sub par from my experience. I did some testing with gluster 3.12 and Ovirt 3.9, on my running production cluster when I enabled the glfsapi, even my pre numbers are significantly better than what Tony is reporting: ??????????????????? Before using gfapi: ]# dd if=/dev/urandom of=test.file bs=1M count=1024 1024+0 records in 1024+0 records out 1073741824

We recently installed a 24 disk SATA array with an LSI controller attached to a box running Solaris X86 10 Release 4. The drives were set up in one big pool with raidz, and it worked great for about a month. On the 4th, we had the system kernel panic and crash, and it''s now behaving very badly. Here''s what diagnostic data I''ve been able to collect so far: In the