similar to: Z-Raid performance with Random reads/writes

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

Hi, for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to one physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has same performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to one physical disk''s ipos. Regards Victor -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

I''m playing around with ZFS and want to figure out the best use of my 6x 300GB SATA drives. The purpose of the drives is to store all of my data at home (video, photos, music, etc). I''m debating between: 6x 300GB disks in a single raidz2 pool --or-- 2x (3x 300GB disks in a pool) mirrored I''ve read up a lot on ZFS, but I can''t really figure out which is

So after toying around with some stuff a few months back I got bogged down and set this project aside for a while. Time to revisit. <BR><BR> Looking around there still is not a good "these cards/motherboards" work list. the HCL is hardly ever updated, and its far more geared towards business use than hobbyist/home use. So bearing all of that in mind I will need the

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 All, I''ve just built an 8 disk zfs storage box, and I''m in the testing phase before I put it into production. I''ve run into some unusual results, and I was hoping the community could offer some suggestions. I''ve bascially made the switch to Solaris on the promises of ZFS alone (yes I''m that excited about it!), so naturally I''m looking

I''m putting together a NexentaOS (b65)-based server that has 4 500 GB drives on it. Currently it has two, set up as a ZFS mirror. I''m able to boot Nexenta from it, and it seems to work ok. But, as I''ve learned, the mirror is not properly redundant, and so I can''t just have a drive fail (when I pull one, the OS ends up hanging, and even if I replace it, I have to

Apologies for the blank message (if it came through). I have heard here and there that there might be in development a plan to make it such that a raid-z can grow its "raid-z''ness" to accommodate a new disk added to it. Example: I have 4Disks in a raid-z[12] configuration. I am uncomfortably low on space, and would like to add a 5th disk. The idea is to pop in disk 5 and have

Hi Is it possible to convert live 3 disks zpool from raidz to raidz2 And is it possible to add 1 new disk to raidz configuration without backups and recreating zpool from cratch. Thanks This message posted from opensolaris.org

> My current zfs setup lookst like this: > > homepool 3.63G 34.1G 8K /homepool > > homepool/db 61.6M 34.1G 8.50K /var/db > > homepool/db/pgsql 61.5M 34.1G 61.5M > > /var/db/pgsql > > homepool/home 3.57G 34.1G 10.0K /users > > homepool/home/carrie 8K 34.1G 8K > > /users/carrie > >

I''ve got 12Gb or so of db+web in a zone on a ZFS filesystem on a mirrored zpool. Noticed during some performance testing today that its i/o bound but using hardly any CPU, so I thought turning on compression would be a quick win. I know I''ll have to copy files for existing data to be compressed, so I was going to make a new filesystem, enable compression and rysnc everything in,

Folks, We are in the process of purchasing new san/s that our mail server runs on (JES3). We have moved our mailstores to zfs and continue to have checksum errors -- they are corrected but this improves on the ufs inode errors that require system shutdown and fsck. So, I am recommending that we buy small jbods, do raidz2 and let zfs handle the raiding of these boxes. As we need more

Hi All, Is there a simple way to list all currently open file descriptors ? TIA.. Regards, Venkat -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

Hi All, I am looking at ZFS and I get that they call it RAIDZ which is similar to RAID 5, but what about RAID 10? Isn''t a RAID 10 setup better for data protection? So if I have 8 x 1.5tb drives, wouldn''t I: - mirror drive 1 and 5 - mirror drive 2 and 6 - mirror drive 3 and 7 - mirror drive 4 and 8 Then stripe 1,2,3,4 Then stripe 5,6,7,8 How does one do this with ZFS?

I skimmed the archives and found a thread from July earlier this year about RAIDZ expansion. Not adding more RAIDZ stripes to a pool, but adding more drives to the stripe itself. I''m wondering if an RFE has been submitted for this and if any progress has been made, or is expected? I find myself out of space on my current RAID5 setup and would love to flip over to a ZFS raidz2 solution

Why does zfs define raidz/raidz2/mirror/stripe at the pool level instead of the filesystem/volume level? A sample use case: two filesystems in a eight disk pool. The first filesystems is a stripe across four mirrors. The second filesystems is a raidz2. Both utilizing the free space in the 8 disk pool as needed. Thanks in advance... This message posted from opensolaris.org

I have zpool like that pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz3-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t0d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 ___c6t4d0 ONLINE

Among other things, I run an http server on my home DSL line (6M/768kbit). The content includes several large image galleries, and when certain crawlers hit our server w/ multiple large image uploads, we end up with large ping time delays - sufficient to disrupt the kids'' on-line gaming. Attempts to control this with robots.txt has not be very successful; Solaris IPQoS appears quite

"Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot?" That''s a kind of radical, possibly offensive, question formula that I have lately. Reading up on theory of RAID5, I grasped the idea of the write hole (where one of the sectors of the stripe, such as the parity data, doesn''t get written - leading to invalid data upon read). In general, I think the same applies to bitrot of

1. I have a 4x18GB drive setup as RAIDZ. Now when thinking about it in terms of RAID5 I would expect to get (4-1)x18 worth of drive space, but DF -h shows 4x18. Is this a bug or do I not understand? 2. Once again thinking in RAID5 terms if I have 4X18GB and 12X9GB drives and I want to make a RAIDZ of all of them I would expect the 18GB to be treated at 9GB so the RAIDZ would be 16X9GB. Is