similar to: ZFS Prefetch Tuning

Hello, Im about to migrate a 6Tb database from Veritas Volume Manager to ZFS, I want to set arc_max parameter so ZFS cant use all my system''s memory, but i dont know how much i should set, do you think 24Gb will be enough for a 6Tb database? obviously the more the better but i cant set too much memory. Have someone implemented succesfully something similar? We ran some test and the

HI, Getting below error while trying to compile openssh-5.8p2 on *Centos 5.6_X86-64* *configure: error: *** Can't find recent OpenSSL libcrypto (see config.log for details) **** I recently compiled latest open ssl version *OpenSSL 1.0.0d 8 Feb 2011 *please help me to solve this issue. ** Thanks&Regards, Abdul Jabbar * *

To the support team, I am getting confused while studying the manual of speex1.2 Beta 2. If audio frame capture and playback are used asynchronously then speex_echo_cancel() function is preferred that is simpler then speex_echo_cancellation() function. However when I go through the API manual, In section 5.4.4.1 It is mentioned that this function is deprecated. Please tell me the set of

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

Hello, ZFS is behaving strange on a OSOL laptop, your thoughts are welcome. I am running OSOL on my laptop, currently b124 and i found that the performance of ZFS is not optimal in all situations. If i check the how much space the package cache for pkg(1) uses, it takes a bit longer on this host than on comparable machine to which i transferred all the data. user at host:/var/pkg$ time

I''m running on s10s_u4wos_12b and doing the following test. Create a pool, striped across 4 physical disks from a storage array. Write a 100GB file to the filesystem (dd from /dev/zero out to the file). Run I/O against that file, doing 100% random writes with an 8K block size. zpool iostat shows the following... capacity operations bandwidth pool used

Hi Everyone, I perform a snapshot and a zfs send on a filesystem with a recordsize of 16k, and redirect the output to a plain file. Later, I use cat sentfs | zfs receive otherpool/filesystem. In this case the new filesystem''s recordsize will be the default 128k again. The other filesystem attributes (for example atime) are reverted to defaults too. Okay, I can set these later,

Would it be worthwhile to implement heuristics to auto-tune ''recordsize'', or would that not be worth the effort? -- Regards, Jeremy

I''m working with a Cyrus IMAP server running on a T2000 box under Solaris 10 10/09 with current patches. Mailboxes reside on six ZFS filesystems, each containing about 200 gigabytes of data. These are part of a single zpool built on four Iscsi devices from our Netapp filer. One of these ZFS filesystems contains a number of global and per-user databases in addition to one sixth of the

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/

1. Does variable FSB block sizing extend to files larger than record size, concerning the last FSB allocated? In other words, for files larger than 128KB, that utilize more than one full recordsize FSB, will the LAST FSB allocated be ''right-sized'' to fit the remaining data, or will ZFS allocate a full recordsize FSB for the last ''chunk'' of the file? (This is

My understanding is that if I "zfs set checksum=<different>" to change the algorithm that this will change the checksum algorithm for all FUTURE data blocks written, but does not in any way change the checksum for previously written data blocks. I need to corroborate this understanding. Could someone please point me to a document that states this? I have searched and searched

While setting up my new system, I''m wondering whether I should go with plain directories or use ZFS filesystems for specific stuff. About the cost of ZFS filesystems, I read on some Sun blog in the past about something like 64k kernel memory (or whatever) per active filesystem. What are however the additional costs? The reason I''m considering multiple filesystems is for instance

Hi, Created a zpool with 64k recordsize and enabled dedupe on it. zpool create -O recordsize=64k TestPool device1 zfs set dedup=on TestPool I copied files onto this pool over nfs from a windows client. Here is the output of zpool list Prompt:~# zpool list NAME SIZE ALLOC FREE CAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT TestPool 696G 19.1G 677G 2% 1.13x ONLINE - When I ran a

Hi All, I am running nevada 79 BFU''ed to 82. The machine is a Ultra 20 with 4GB memory. I have several Windows XP domU''s configured and registered. When ever I try to start the fourth domain I get an out of memory exception: Not enough memory is available, and dom0 cannot be shrunk any further Each of my domains only uses 256 so I thought there would be sufficient memory

We run our IMAP spool on ZFS that''s derived from LUNs on a Netapp filer. There''s a great deal of churn in e-mail folders, with messages appearing and being deleted frequently. I know that ZFS uses copy-on- write, so that blocks in use are never overwritten, and that deleted blocks are added to a free list. This behavior would spread the free list all over the zpool. As well,

I''ve been seeing read and write performance pathologies with Linux ext3 over iSCSI to zvols, especially with small writes. Does running a journalled filesystem to a zvol turn the block storage into swiss cheese? I am considering serving ext3 journals (and possibly swap too) off a raw, hardware-mirrored device. Before I do (and I''ll write up any results) I''d like to know

A customer has a zpool where their spectral analysis applications create a ton (millions?) of very small files that are typically 1858 bytes in length. They''re using ZFS because UFS consistently runs out of inodes. I''m assuming that ZFS aggregates these little files into recordsize (128K?) blobs for writes. This seems to go reasonably well amazingly enough. Reads are a

Hello, I have several ~12TB storage servers using Solaris with ZFS. Two of them have recently developed performance issues where the majority of time in an spa_sync() will be spent in the space_map_*() functions. During this time, "zpool iostat" will show 0 writes to disk, while it does hundreds or thousands of small (~3KB) reads each second, presumably reading space map data from

I have a lot of people whispering "zfs" in my virtual ear these days, and at the same time I have an irrational attachment to xfs based entirely on its lack of the 32000 subdirectory limit. I''m not afraid of ext4''s newness, since really a lot of that stuff has been in Lustre for years. So a-benchmarking I went. Results at the bottom: