similar to: Best Practises => Keep Pool Below 80%?

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

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

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

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

Hello, We have a new Thor here with 24TB of disk in (first of many, hopefully). We are trying to determine the bext practices with respect to file system management and sizing. Previously, we have tried to keep each file system to a max size of 500GB to make sure we could fit it all on a single tape, and to minimise restore times and impact should we experience some kind of volume

From: Aaron Conole <aconole at bytheb.org> The virtio committee recently ratified a change, VIRTIO-152, which defines the mtu field to be 'max' MTU, not simply desired MTU. This commit brings the virtio-net device in compliance with VIRTIO-152. Additionally, drop the max_mtu branch - it cannot be taken since the u16 returned by virtio_cread16 will never exceed the initial value of

From: Aaron Conole <aconole at bytheb.org> The virtio committee recently ratified a change, VIRTIO-152, which defines the mtu field to be 'max' MTU, not simply desired MTU. This commit brings the virtio-net device in compliance with VIRTIO-152. Additionally, drop the max_mtu branch - it cannot be taken since the u16 returned by virtio_cread16 will never exceed the initial value of

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:23:54PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:55:21PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: ... > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > > index fad84f3..720809f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > > @@ -1419,17 +1419,6 @@ static const struct ethtool_ops

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

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:23:54PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:55:21PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: ... > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > > index fad84f3..720809f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > > @@ -1419,17 +1419,6 @@ static const struct ethtool_ops

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

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, 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

hyperv_net: - set min/max_mtu virtio_net: - set min/max_mtu - remove virtnet_change_mtu vmxnet3: - set min/max_mtu CC: netdev at vger.kernel.org CC: virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org CC: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys at microsoft.com> CC: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz at microsoft.com> CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> CC: Shrikrishna Khare

hyperv_net: - set min/max_mtu virtio_net: - set min/max_mtu - remove virtnet_change_mtu vmxnet3: - set min/max_mtu CC: netdev at vger.kernel.org CC: virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org CC: "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys at microsoft.com> CC: Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz at microsoft.com> CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> CC: Shrikrishna Khare

Hi Folks.. We have started to convert our Veritas clustered systems over to ZFS root to take advantage of the extreme simplification of using Live Upgrade. Moving the data of these systems off VxVM and VxFS is not in scope for reasons to numerous to go into.. One thing my customers noticed immediately was a reduction in "free" memory as reported by ''top''. By way

The virtio committee recently ratified a change, VIRTIO-152, which defines the mtu field to be 'max' MTU, not simply desired MTU. This commit brings the virtio-net device in compliance with VIRTIO-152. Additionally, drop the max_mtu branch - it cannot be taken since the u16 returned by virtio_cread16 will never exceed the initial value of max_mtu. Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <aconole

The virtio committee recently ratified a change, VIRTIO-152, which defines the mtu field to be 'max' MTU, not simply desired MTU. This commit brings the virtio-net device in compliance with VIRTIO-152. Additionally, drop the max_mtu branch - it cannot be taken since the u16 returned by virtio_cread16 will never exceed the initial value of max_mtu. Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <aconole

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