similar to: Re: Converting home directory from ufs to zfs

I contacted the author of ''lsof'' regarding the missing ZFS support. The command works but fails to display any files that are opened by the process in a ZFS filesystem. He indicates that the required ZFS kernel structure definitions (header files) are not shipped with the OS. He further indicated that he rummaged through the OpenSolaris source tree and the files doesn''t

Since most of our customers are predominantly UFS based, we would like to use the same configuration and compare ZFS performance, so that we can announce support for ZFS. We''re planning on measuring the performance of a ZFS file system vs UFS file system. Please look at the following scenario and let us know if this is a good performance measurement criterion.

I''m observing the following behavior in our environment (Sol10U2, E2900, 24x96, 2x2Gbps, ...) - I''ve a compressed ZFS filesystem where I''m creating a large tar file. I notice that the tar process is running fine (accumulating CPU, truss shows writes, ...) but for whatever reason the timestamp on the file doesn''t change nor does the file size change. The same is

Hi ZFS gods, I have a x4500 I wish to upgrade from a SVM UFS Sol 10u5 to a ZFS rpool 10u6 or Opensolaris. Since I know (via backing up my sharetab) what shares I need to have (all nfs share - no cifs on this 4500 - YAY) and have organised downtime for this server, would it be easier for me to go to Solaris 10u6 (or opensolaris) by just installing from scratch and re-importing the ZPOOL

Hi, Bug ID: 6775100 stat() performance on files on zfs should be improved was fixed in snv_119. I wanted to do a quick comparison between snv_117 and snv_122 on my workstation to see what kind of improvement there is. I wrote a small C program which does a stat() N times in a loop. This is of course a micro-benchmark. Additionally it doesn''t cover a case if doing stat() on not cached

I have a test cluster running HA-NFS that shares both ufs and zfs based file systems. However, the behavior that I am seeing is a little perplexing. The Setup: I have Sun Cluster 3.2 on a pair of SunBlade 1000''s connecting to two T3B partner groups through a QLogic switch. All four bricks of the T3B are configured as RAID-5 with a hot spare. One brick from each pair is mirrored with VxVM

hi all Try to learn how UFS root to ZFS root liveUG work. I download the vbox image of s10u8, it come up as UFS root. add a new disks (16GB) create zpool rpool run lucreate -n zfsroot -p rpool run luactivate zfsroot run lustatus it do show zfsroot will be active in next boot init 6 but it come up with UFS root, lustatus show ufsroot active zpool rpool is mounted but not used by boot Is this a

Hi all, Does zfs and UFS will sit on same machine?. if yes is it possible to share zfs files using CIFS. Thanks Naveen -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

I have two 200GB ISCSI LUN''s setup on each X4600 M2 running Solaris 10 X86 update 4. The data on these ISCSI disks for one server will be Apache and on the other server MYSQL. My question is should I setup these disks as a ZFS Pool filesystem or as a UFS soft partition (eventually the LUN will be expanded). What would offer the best performance and easier to expand later on? What

Hi All, If a zone root is on zfs but that zone also contains SAN attached UFS devices what is recorded in a zfs snapshot of the zone? Does the snapshot only contain the ZFS root info? How would one recover this complete zone? Thanks, Shawn -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

I have two 200GB ISCSI LUN''s setup on each X4600 M2 running Solaris 10 X86 update 4. The data on these ISCSI disks for one server will be Apache and on the other server MYSQL. My question is should I setup these disks as a ZFS Pool filesystem or as a UFS soft partition (eventually the LUN will be expanded). What would offer the best performance and easier to expand later on? What

We are running Solaris 10 11/06 on a Sun V240 with 2 CPUS and 8 GB of memory. This V240 is attached to a 3510 FC that has 12 x 300 GB disks. The 3510 is configured as HW RAID 5 with 10 disks and 2 spares and it''s exported to the V240 as a single LUN. We create iso images of our product in the following way (high-level): # mkfile 3g /isoimages/myiso # lofiadm -a /isoimages/myiso

Hi, ZFS experts, From ZFS release notes, " Solaris 10 6/06 and Solaris 10 11/06: Do Not Place the Root File Systemof a Non-Global Zone on ZFS. The zonepath of a non-global zone should not reside on ZFS for this release. This action might result in patching problems and possibly prevent the system from being upgraded to a later Solaris 10 update release." So my question is, do we

This may not be the answer you''re looking for, but I don''t know if it''s something you''ve thought of. If you''re pulling a LUN from an expensive array, with multiple HBA''s in the system, why not run mpxio? If you ARE running mpxio, there shouldn''t be an issue with a path dropping. I have the setup above in my test lab and pull cables

I have a Solaris 10 U5 system massively patched so that it supports ZFS pool version 15 (similar to U8, kernel Generic_141445-09), live upgrade components have been updated to Solaris 10 U8 versions from the DVD, and GRUB has been updated to support redundant menus across the UFS boot environments. I have studied the Solaris 10 Live Upgrade manual (821-0438) and am unable to find any

Hi folks, Myself and a colleague are currently involved in a prototyping exercise to evaluate ZFS against our current filesystem. We are looking at the best way to arrange the disks in a 3510 storage array. We have been testing with the 12 disks on the 3510 exported as "nraid" logical devices. We then configured a single ZFS pool on top of this, using two raid-z arrays. We are getting

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

I had some trouble installing a zone on ZFS with S10u4 (bug in the postgres packages) that went away when I used a ZVOL-backed UFS filesystem for the zonepath. I thought I''d push on with the experiment (in the hope Live Upgrade would be able to upgrade such a zone). It''s a bit unwieldy, but everything worked reasonably well - performance isn''t much worse than straight

As part of looking into a minor issue with the group listed when using runat(1) on a UFS filesystem for Johannes (my Google Summer of Code student work on new basic file privs), I discovered an even bigger issue with UFS and extended attributes. I''ve cc''d ZFS discuss because I used ZFS as the comparison and I believe that ZFS is acting correctly but even then it might not be

Frank, Please find comments in-line below... All, Note that I''ll be off-line for some doctor''s appointments part of the day Friday and will be out of the country for a week starting Saturday. So, I may be very slow responding to issues raised here for a while. Cheers, Don >Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:41:53 +0100 (BST) >From: Frank Hofmann <Frank.Hofmann at