similar to: 3510 configuration for ZFS

Hi zfs-discuss, I have some questions about throttling on ZFS 1) I know that throttling is activating while one sync is waiting for another. (http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/roch?entry=the_dynamics_of_zfs) Is it possible to throttle only selected processes (e.g. nfsd) ? 2) How can I obtain some statistics about it? I want to know how often throttling is activating on my host etc. 3) Is it

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

Hello zfs-discuss, What would you rather propose for ZFS+ORACLE - zvols or just files from the performance standpoint? -- Best regards, Robert mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl http://milek.blogspot.com

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

Greetings, In looking for inexpensive JBOD and/or RAID solutions to use with ZFS, I''ve run across the recent "VTrak" SAS/SATA systems from Promise Technologies, specifically their E-class and J-class series: E310f FC-connected RAID: http://www.promise.com/product/product_detail_eng.asp?product_id=175 E310s SAS-connected RAID:

All, I understand that ZFS gives you more error correction when using two LUNS from a SAN. But, does it provide you with less features than UFS does on one LUN from a SAN (i.e is it less stable). Thanks, Shawn This message posted from opensolaris.org

Hello zfs-discuss, I wonder if ZFS will be able to take any advantage of Niagara''s built-in crypto? -- Best regards, Robert Milkowski mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl http://milek.blogspot.com

Hi all, I am going to have solaris 06/06, a database (postgresql), application server (tomcat or sun app. server) on x86, 2GB with max. 3 scsi (hardware raid possible) disks. There will be no e-mail or file serving. The ratio of write/read operations to database is >=2 (and there is no other significant disk io). Block size of postgresql is default (I think it is 8K). Our application

Hello zfs-discuss, Relatively low traffic to the pool but sync takes too long to complete and other operations are also not that fast. Disks are on 3510 array. zil_disable=1. bash-3.00# ptime sync real 1:21.569 user 0.001 sys 0.027 During sync zpool iostat and vmstat look like: f3-1 504G 720G 370 859 995K 10.2M misc 20.6M 52.0G 0 0

Hi all. A quick question about the checksum error detection routines in ZFS. Surely ZFS can decide about checksum errors in a redundant environment but what about an non-redundant one? We connected a single RAID5 array to a v440 as a NFS server and while doing backups and the like we see the "zpool status -v" checksum error counters increment once in a while. Nevertheless the

for s10u2, documentation recommends 3 to 9 devices in raidz. what is the basis for this recommendation? i assume it is performance and not failure resilience, but i am just guessing... [i know, recommendation was intended for people who know their raid cold, so it needed no further explanation] thanks... oz -- ozan s. yigit | oz at somanetworks.com | 416 977 1414 x 1540 I have a hard time

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 work on a support team for the Sun StorEdge 6920 and have a question about the use of the SCSI sync cache command in Solaris and ZFS. We have a bug in our 6920 software that exposes us to a memory leak when we receive the SCSI sync cache command: 6456312 - SCSI Synchronize Cache Command is flawed It will take some time for this bug fix to role out to the field so we need to understand

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

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

Hi, I have been seeing data corruption on the ZFS filesystem. Here are some details. The machine is running s10 on X86 platform with a single 160Gb SATA disk. (root on s0 and zfs on s7) ...Sanjaya --------- /etc/release ---------- -bash-3.00# cat /etc/release Solaris 10 6/06 s10x_u2wos_09a X86 Copyright 2006 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights

Under Solaris 10 on a 4 core Sun Ultra 40 with 20GB RAM, I am setting up a Sun StorageTek 2540 with 12 300GB 15K RPM SAS drives and connected via load-shared 4Gbit FC links. This week I have tried many different configurations, using firmware managed RAID, ZFS managed RAID, and with the controller cache enabled or disabled. My objective is to obtain the best single-file write performance.

Is ZFS efficient at handling huge populations of tiny-to-small files - for example, 20 million TIFF images in a collection, each between 5 and 500k in size? I am asking because I could have sworn that I read somewhere that it isn''t, but I can''t find the reference. Thanks, Brian -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/

We have a Mirror setup in ZFS that''s 73GB (two internal disks on a sun fire v440). We currently are going to attach this system to an Equallogic Box, and will attach an ISCSCI LUN from the Equallogic box to the v440 of about 200gb. The Equallogic Box is configured as a Hardware Raid 50 (two hot spares for redundancy). My question is what''s the best approach to moving the ZFS

Hey, I have a portable harddisk Western Digital 120GB USB. Im running Nevada b42a on Thinkpad T43. Is this a supported configuration for setting up ZFS on portable disks ? Found out some old blogs about this topic: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/artem?entry=zfs_on_the_go and some other info under: http://www.sun.com/io_technologies/USB-Faq.html Is this information still valid ? Under ZFS FAQ