similar to: Is ZFS efficient for large collections of small files?

Hi Everyone, I perform a snapshot and a zfs send on a filesystem with a recordsize of 16k, and redirect the output to a plain file. Later, I use cat sentfs | zfs receive otherpool/filesystem. In this case the new filesystem''s recordsize will be the default 128k again. The other filesystem attributes (for example atime) are reverted to defaults too. Okay, I can set these later,

Hi all, yesterday we had a drive failure on a fc-al jbod with 14 drives. Suddenly the zpool using that jbod stopped to respond to I/O requests and we get tons of the following messages on /var/adm/messages: Sep 3 15:20:10 fb2 scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: /scsi_vhci/disk at g20000004cfd81b9f (sd52): Sep 3 15:20:10 fb2 SCSI transport failed: reason ''timeout'':

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I would like to know the blocksize of a particular file. I know the blocksize for a particular file is decided at creation time, in fuction of the write size done and the recordsize property of the dataset. How can I access that information?. Some zdb magic?. - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea at

I''m running on s10s_u4wos_12b and doing the following test. Create a pool, striped across 4 physical disks from a storage array. Write a 100GB file to the filesystem (dd from /dev/zero out to the file). Run I/O against that file, doing 100% random writes with an 8K block size. zpool iostat shows the following... capacity operations bandwidth pool used

Hey Guys, Have any of y''all seen a condition where the ILOM considers a disk faulted (status is 3 instead of 1), but ZFS keeps writing to the disk and doesn''t report any errors? I''m going to do a scrub tomorrow and see what comes back. I''m curious what caused the ILOM to fault the disk. Any advice is greatly appreciated. Best Regards, Jason P.S. The system is

Would it be worthwhile to implement heuristics to auto-tune ''recordsize'', or would that not be worth the effort? -- Regards, Jeremy

Hi, I am soliciting input from the ZFS engineers and/or ZFS users on an extension to "zfs list". Thanks in advance for your feedback. Quick Background: The pNFS project (http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nfsv41/) is adding a new DMU object set type which is used on the pNFS data server to store pNFS stripe DMU objects. A pNFS dataset gets created with the "zfs

Hi, I''m struggling to get a stable ZFS replication using Solaris 10 110/06 (actual patches) and AVS 4.0 for several weeks now. We tried it on VMware first and ended up in kernel panics en masse (yes, we read Jim Dunham''s blog articles :-). Now we try on the real thing, two X4500 servers. Well, I have no trouble replicating our kernel panics there, too ... but I think I

I have a lot of people whispering "zfs" in my virtual ear these days, and at the same time I have an irrational attachment to xfs based entirely on its lack of the 32000 subdirectory limit. I''m not afraid of ext4''s newness, since really a lot of that stuff has been in Lustre for years. So a-benchmarking I went. Results at the bottom:

Hi All, Is there a way to tune the zfs prefetch on a per pool basis? I have a customer that is seeing slow performance on a pool the contains multiple tablespaces from an Oracle database, looking at the LUNs associated to that pool they are constantly at 80% - 100% busy. Looking at the output from arcstat for the miss % on data, prefetch and metadata we are getting around 5 - 10 % on data,

Hi, I''m running Opensolaris 2009.06, and I''m facing a serious performance loss with ZFS ! It''s a raidz1 pool, made of 4 x 1TB SATA disks : zfs_raid ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c7t4d0 ONLINE 0 0

I discovered Capistrano while I was trying to figure out what I wanted. See attached notes. http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/GNOSIS/Kraken Puppet seems promising. Thanks, Brian -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/

I''ve been seeing read and write performance pathologies with Linux ext3 over iSCSI to zvols, especially with small writes. Does running a journalled filesystem to a zvol turn the block storage into swiss cheese? I am considering serving ext3 journals (and possibly swap too) off a raw, hardware-mirrored device. Before I do (and I''ll write up any results) I''d like to know

If this has already been covered, please point me to that (I didn''t find anything in my searches)... We are using F5 BigIP LTM load balancers. They have many pools of Mongrels they load balance across, and I of course want the F5 to know when a Mongrel goes down or is unavailable, etc. To do that, I need to have an F5 health monitor for HTTP make a request to the Mongrel. We do this

Hi, I''m preparing a personal TPC-H benchmark. The goal is not to measure or optimize the database performance, but to compare ZFS to UFS in similar configurations. At the moment I''m preparing the tests at home. The test setup is as follows: . Solaris snv_37 . 2 x AMD Opteron 252 . 4 GB RAM . 2 x 80 GB ST380817AS . Oracle 10gR2 (small SGA (320m)) The disks also contain the OS

[originally reported for ZFS on FreeBSD but Pawel Jakub Dawid says this problem also exists on Solaris hence this email.] Summary: on ZFS, overhead for reading a hole seems far worse than actual reading from a disk. Small buffers are used to make this overhead more visible. I ran the following script on both ZFS and UF2 filesystems. [Note that on FreeBSD cat uses a 4k buffer and md5 uses a 1k

Currently and going forward people will be running multiple versions of puppet. What are the plans for puppet compatibility with Modules? Thinking we may want to be able to specify what version of Puppet is running and ask for the compatible module. (Which may be the same). Thanks, Brian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users"

A customer has a zpool where their spectral analysis applications create a ton (millions?) of very small files that are typically 1858 bytes in length. They''re using ZFS because UFS consistently runs out of inodes. I''m assuming that ZFS aggregates these little files into recordsize (128K?) blobs for writes. This seems to go reasonably well amazingly enough. Reads are a

Over the years many shops have come to start running puppet via cron to address memory leaks in earlier versions of Ruby, but the official position was that puppet was meant to be run as a continually running service. I am wondering if the official position has changed. On one hand many if not all of the early Ruby issues have been fixed, on the other, the addition of mcollective into the mix as

While setting up my new system, I''m wondering whether I should go with plain directories or use ZFS filesystems for specific stuff. About the cost of ZFS filesystems, I read on some Sun blog in the past about something like 64k kernel memory (or whatever) per active filesystem. What are however the additional costs? The reason I''m considering multiple filesystems is for instance