similar to: NFS Block Monitor

Hello all... I''m seeing this behaviour in an old build (89), and i just want to hear from you if there is some known bug about it. I''m aware of the "picket fencing" problem, and that ZFS is not choosing right if write to slog is better or not (thinking if we have a better throughput from disks). But i did not find anything about 100% slog activity (~115MB/s) blocks

Hello all, First off, i''m talking about a SXDE build 89. Sorry if that was discussed here before, but i did not find anything related on the archives, and i think is a "weird" issue... If i try to remove a specific file, i got: # rm file1 rm: file1: No such file or directory # rm -rf dir2 rm: Unable to remove directory dir2: Directory not empty Take a look: ------- cut

Hi there, I would like to point out that Pack Publishing released a new book about Samba 4 available here: http://www.packtpub.com/implementing-samba-4/book As is usual for Packt books, it is a practical book and aim to get the users executing tasks easily/quickly and in an effective manner. I would say it is not a "Samba Bible" or a "Reference Guide", but should suit new

Hey folks, This might be a daft idea, but is there any way to shut down solaris / zfs without flushing the slog device? The reason I ask is that we''re planning to use mirrored nvram slogs, and in the long term hope to use a pair of 80GB ioDrives. I''d like to have a large amount of that reserved for write cache (potentially 20-30GB), to facilitate rapid suspend to disk of

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

I have a pool with a single SLOG device rated at Y iops. If I add a second (non-mirrored) SLOG device also rated at Y iops will my zpool now theoretically be able to handle 2Y iops? Or close to that? Thanks, Ray

Hello all, I was thinking if such scenario could be possible: 1 - Export/import a ZFS filesystem in two solaris servers. 2 - Export that filesystem (NFS). 3 - Mount that filesystem on clients in two different mount points (just to authenticate in both servers/UDP). 4a - Use some kind of "man-in-the middle" to auto-balance the connections (the same IP on servers) or 4b - Use different

Thanks Sean for the reference. I will go through it and see if i can implement it for generic boolean expression minimization. Regards, Suyog On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Re-adding the mailing list (remember to hit "reply all") > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:36 AM, suyog sarda <sardask01 at gmail.com> wrote:

So, when you add a log device to a pool, it initiates a resilver. What is it actually doing, though? Isn''t the slog a copy of the in-memory intent log? Wouldn''t it just simply replicate the data that''s in the other log, checked against what''s in RAM? And presumably there isn''t that much data in the slog so there isn''t that much to check? Or

I don't understand your point. Which version is better does NOT depend on what inputs are passed to the function. The compiled code for (as per llvm) f1 will always take less time to execute than f2. for x > 0 => T(f1) < T(f2) for x <= 0 => T(f1) = T(f2) where T() is the time to execute the given function. So always T(f1) <= T(f2). I would call this a missed

Hello, I have an issue with the llvm optimizations. I need to create object codes. the -ON PURPOSE poor && useless- code : --------------------------------------------------- #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int ci(int a){ return 23; } int flop(int a, char ** c){ a += 71; int b = 0; if (a == 56){ b = 69; b += ci(a); } puts("ok"); return a +

Hi Duncan, David, Sean. Thanks for your reply. > It'd be interesting if you could find a design that also treated these > the same: > > (B ^ A) | ((A ^ B) ^ C) -> (A ^ B) | C > (B ^ A) | ((B ^ C) ^ A) -> (A ^ B) | C > (B ^ A) | ((C ^ A) ^ B) -> (A ^ B) | C > > I.e., `^` is also associative. Agree with Duncan on including associative operation too.

Hi, Out of pure curiosity, I was wondering, what would happen if one tries to use a regular 7200RPM (or 10K) drive as slog or L2ARC (or both)? I know these are designed with SSDs in mind, and I know it''s possible to use anything you want as cache. So would ZFS benefit from it? Would it be the same? Would it slow down? I guess it would slow things down, because it would be trying to

When I increased COLS to the point where the loop could no longer be unrolled, the selection dag code generator generated effectively the same code as the default X86 code generator. Lots of redundant imul/movl/addl sequences. It can't clean it up either. Only unrolling all nested loops permits it to be optimized away, regardless of code generator. Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed

> You're misreading the asm... nothing is touching memory. (BTW, "leal > -1(%eax), %eax" isn't a memory operation; it's just subtracting one > from %eax.) You might want to try reading the LLVM IR (which you can > generate with llvm-gcc -S -emit-llvm); it tends to be easier to read. I tried that, but I'm still learning LLVM. Seeing indvar, phi nodes, tail

Thanks Volker, I've Changed the values as you suggested, i noticed that the default value for max xmit is much less 16384! Still I feel like the performance is very slow indeed. This because on server, a can make copys arround 8gb/s! and in samba is all so slow and it freezes as i sad many times... Can you have a second look to the log, to see if you see anything strange? I'm putting

Firts of all Greetings From Cuba "Saludos" to all of the member of this list. My name it's Orestes Leal, at your service. Well, The problem it's the following: I have one ATI RADEON 200 Series Integrated into the mainboard (ATI Technologies Inc RC410 [Radeon Xpress 200]), the chip has 64 megs of Video and 64 shared from memory to a total amount of 128 megs, the Xorg says me

I have three zpools on a server and want to add a mirrored pair of ssd''s for the ZIL. Can the same pair of SSDs be used for the ZIL of all three zpools or is it one ZIL SLOG device per zpool? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

Hi, I don''t know if it''s already been discussed here, but while thinking about using the OCZ Vertex 2 Pro SSD (which according to spec page has supercaps built in) as a shared slog and L2ARC device it stroke me that this might not be a such a good idea. Because this SSD is MLC based, write cycles are an issue here, though I can''t find any number in their spec. Why do I

Hi everyone, I''m new to rails and also to rspec, but I tried to do my homework. To answer my questions, I searched this list''s archives, the Rails API, and Google, to no avail. Therefor, I''d be grateful if someone could point me in the right directions: 1) There doesn''t seem to be a counterpart to assert_recognizes in rspec. route_for() won''t work