similar to: ZFS Evil Tuning Guide

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

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 state on this

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

In the ZFS Best Practises Guide here: http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide It says: ``Currently, pool performance can degrade when a pool is very full and file systems are updated frequently, such as on a busy mail server. Under these circumstances, keep pool space under 80% utilization to maintain pool performance.''''

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

I have read the ZFS best practice guide located at http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide However I have questions whether we support using slices for data on the same disk as we use for ZFS boot. What issues does this create if we have a disk failure in a mirrored environment? Does anyone have examples of customers doing this in production environments. I

<http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#RAID-Z_Configuration_Requirements_and_Recommendations> says that the number of disks in a RAIDZ should be (N+P) with N = {2,4,8} and P = {1,2}. But if you go down the page just a little further to the thumper configuration examples, none of the 3 examples follow this recommendation! I will have 10 disks to put into a

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%

Issues with ZFS and Sun Cluster If a cluster node crashes and HAStoragePlus resource group containing ZFS structure (ie. Zpool) is transitioned to a surviving node, the zpool import can cause the surviving node to panic. Zpool was obviously not exported in controlled fashion because of hard crash. Storage structure is - HW RAID protected LUN from array. Zpool build on single HW LUN. Zpool created

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

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

Whats the default size of the file system cache for Solaris 10 x86 and can it be tuned? I read various posts on the subject and its confusing.. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

While thinking about ZFS as the next generation filesystem without limits I am wondering if the real world is ready for this kind of incredible technology ... I''m actually speaking of hardware :) ZFS can handle a lot of devices. Once in the import bug (http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6761786) is fixed it should be able to handle a lot of disks. I want to

Hi, this says that opensolaris only requires 512MB ram: http://dlc.sun.com/osol/docs/content/IPS/sysreq.html This says 1GB ram and a 64bit processor are recommended: http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#Memory_and_Swap_Space Am I going to have problems if I run opensolaris and zfs at the minimum requirements? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

For Solaris 10 5/09... There are supposed to be performance improvements if you create a zpool on a full disk, such as one with an EFI label. Does the same apply if the full disk is used with an SMI label, which is required to boot? I am trying to determine the trade-off, if any, of having a single rpool on cXtYd0s2, if I can even do that, and improved performance compared to having two

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

The time has come to review the current Contributor and Core contributor grants for ZFS. Since all of the ZFS core contributors grants are set to expire on 02-24-2009 we need to renew the members that are still contributing at core contributor levels. We should also add some new members to both Contributor and Core contributor levels. First the current list of Core contributors: Bill

I''m CCing zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org, as this doesn''t look like FreeBSD-specific problem. It looks there is a problem with block allocation(?) when we are near quota limit. tank/foo dataset has quota set to 10m: Without quota: FreeBSD: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/tank/test bs=512 count=20480 time: 0.7s Solaris: # dd if=/dev/zero of=/tank/test bs=512 count=20480 time: 4.5s

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?

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