Forwarding to the list.
I put the patch on a Sun blade 100 with 256 megs of ram
and no issues so far. (sparc64 architecture)
sunburn# uname -a
FreeBSD sunburn 8.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD
8.1-PRERELEASE #6: Tue Jul 6 20:59:09 UTC 2010
r...@sunburn:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC sparc64
sunburn#
Ivan Voras writes:
Hello Ivan,
> I'm not a Solaris guy but from
> http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+comstar/ it looks like
> COMSTAR does something similar to what FreeBSD's GEOM does now.
Ok.
It seems to me that COMSTAR provides one functionality that GEOM misses,
a generic SCSI tar
Hey Martin,
Actually it's this one:
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6574286
-J
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Martin Matuska wrote:
> What about the OpenSolaris revision 9701 for starters?
> Could that help your case?
>
> 9701:cc5b64682e64
>
> 6803605 should be ab
On 2010-Jul-14 11:26:08 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote:
> In other words:
>The problem is not caused by head-12636.patch
Agreed.
>And this is important, otherwise we are seeking for an error where it isn't.
>I know about the current ARC problem and we have to seek a reasonable
>solution for it, but
In other words:
The problem is not caused by head-12636.patch
And this is important, otherwise we are seeking for an error where it isn't.
I know about the current ARC problem and we have to seek a reasonable
solution for it, but no ugly hacks that work only in specific cases /
workloads.
Dňa 14
On 2010-Jul-14 09:16:09 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote:
> Without head-12636.patch you are unable to reproduce the deadlock?
The deadlock occurs with either stock 8-stable or with head-12636.patch.
I have also been testing arc.patch2 from
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2010-July/
What about the OpenSolaris revision 9701 for starters?
Could that help your case?
9701:cc5b64682e64
6803605 should be able to offline log devices
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6803605
6726045 vdev_deflate_ratio is not set when offlining a log device
http://bugs.open
Without head-12636.patch you are unable to reproduce the deadlock?
Dňa 14. 7. 2010 2:14, Peter Jeremy wrote / napísal(a):
> On 2010-Jul-08 23:30:33 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote:
>> On 8. 7. 2010 22:04, Peter Jeremy wrote / napísal(a):
>>> Without patching arc_memory_throttle(), a system behaves
On 07/13/2010 12:30, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> If there's any way to backport ZFS log device removal that would be
> very helpful. That's the primary hold up for ops folks moving our
> OpenSolaris servers to FreeBSD.
I second this.
In explanation I have one machine that needs to be rearranged
On 2010-Jul-08 23:30:33 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote:
>On 8. 7. 2010 22:04, Peter Jeremy wrote / napísal(a):
>> Without patching arc_memory_throttle(), a system behaves especially
>> poorly if it uses ZFS with any of mmap(2), UFS or NFS client - in my
>> case, ports/mail/mairix was almost guarante
If there's any way to backport ZFS log device removal that would be
very helpful. That's the primary hold up for ops folks moving our
OpenSolaris servers to FreeBSD.
-J
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 9:14 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> Wanted to say thank you for those working on keeping ZFS up to date :-)
>
>
Wanted to say thank you for those working on keeping ZFS up to date :-)
Are all the non-FreeBSD specific fixes being made by the FreeBSD team
being punted back up to the [Open]Solaris folks so that they may include
them in their native ZFS... and thus trickle back down to FreeBSD, thereby
minimizi
Upgrading your pool to version 15, compared to version 14, you get only
these additional features:
- user and group quotas
- getting rid of the old version message in zpool status (-x)
and these disadvantages:
- not importable and/or operable with pre-v15 kernel module and updated
boot loader code
2010/7/8 Martin Matuska :
> Hi Jason,
>
> as for me, I am ready to stand for the stability of my v15 upgrade, it
> has been discussed with our zfs team, and we also see it as a kind of a
> starting point.
>
> We generally have two options:
> a) push ZFS v15 now
> - it has been already disussed
> -
patch works fine here on 8-STABLE.
my deadlock probleme seams to be corrected (after 6h of zfs receive +
find | wc -l + many small reads).
2010/7/10 Peter Jeremy :
> On 2010-Jul-08 23:30:33 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote:
>>> Looking at the patchset, the most critical issue (IMHO) that doesn't
>>> a
On 2010-Jul-08 23:30:33 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote:
>> Looking at the patchset, the most critical issue (IMHO) that doesn't
>> appear to have been addressed is the interaction between ZFS ARC and
>> the VM cache used by UFS/NFS: arc_memory_throttle() is still making
>> decisions solely on the amo
On 8. 7. 2010 22:04, Peter Jeremy wrote / napísal(a):
> On 2010-Jul-05 13:50:52 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote:
>
>> As ZFS v15 is already being used in the Solaris 10 enterprise world, we
>> can consider it well-tested.
>>
> So we know if the ZFS in Solaris 10 includes any fixes that aren't
On 2010-Jul-05 13:50:52 +0200, Martin Matuska wrote:
>As ZFS v15 is already being used in the Solaris 10 enterprise world, we
>can consider it well-tested.
So we know if the ZFS in Solaris 10 includes any fixes that aren't
publicly available?
>Direct link to the patch:
>http://people.freebsd.org
Hi Martin,
If 15 is the only one that will make it into FBSD9 then obviously
that's better than doing nothing.
I'll contact my folks on the ZFS dev team at Sun to pull the DB
enhancements and related ZFS versions.
-J
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:06 AM, Martin Matuska wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> as for
On 07/08/10 01:11, V. T. Mueller, Continum wrote:
> Eric Masson schrieb:
>> Martin Matuska writes:
>>> We decided not to go with v16 - the feature difference for FreeBSD
>>> between v15 and v16 is zero.
>>> (v16 = Common Multiprotocol SCSI Target (COMSTAR) for ISCSI export of
>>> ZVOLS - we don't
On 07/08/10 11:06, Martin Matuska wrote:
>
> Regarding performance, e.g. my PHP web servers with codebase in ZFS
> yield 15-20% more req/s with v15 patch (as compared to v14).
Good enough reason for me (this is most of my workload, too), get it in
as soon as you're able :)
_
Hi,
Martin Matuska wrote:
For people just wanting to try the new features, I am providing mfsBSD
ISO's with ZFS-on-root install (don't forget the -V 15 flag to the
"zfsinstall" command):
http://mfsbsd.vx.sk/iso/8.1rc2-zfsv15-v3.iso (without symbols, 99 MB)
http://mfsbsd.vx.sk/iso/8.1rc2-zfsv15-v
Hi Jason,
as for me, I am ready to stand for the stability of my v15 upgrade, it
has been discussed with our zfs team, and we also see it as a kind of a
starting point.
We generally have two options:
a) push ZFS v15 now
- it has been already disussed
- we can continue with incremental upgrades th
Hi Martin,
If you're using it for NFS then that can be a good feature, but I see a lot
more folks complaining about lack of removal for log devices.
We've been using ZFS on OpenSolaris for DB servers since 2006 and OpenSolaris
bits are very stable. In most cases we've found ZFS under OSol to b
User and group quotas is no important enhancement?
We have to see the whole thing from a stability perspective as well -
OpenSolaris has by far less testing than Solaris 10.
Oracle cannot afford to feed his enterprise customers (and these are not
few) with untested code.
Dňa 7. 7. 2010 20:30, Sam
> using head from 3 hours ago, this patch does not apply cleanly
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/v15/head-v15-v3-extension.patch
>
The patch you are trying is just for experimental testing and can be
applied only on top of
head-v15-v3.patch (so you need to apply head-v15-v3.patch
05.07.2010 14:50, Martin Matuska пишет:
Thank you for testing!
FreeBSD open.vvnews.info 8.1-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 8.1-PRERELEASE #1: Wed
Jul 7 14:12:05 UTC 2010
r...@open.vvnews.info:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP64R amd64
Jul 7 14:39:00 opensolaris kernel: device_attach: est1 attach returne
On 07/07/2010 14:20, Martin Matuska wrote:
> Of course v16 pools cannot be downgraded. But I provided the patch for
> testing only, not for production :-)
> You can consider the latest patch (v15 v3) to be more in direction
> production - it is much more complete and very closely follows Solaris 10
Eric Masson schrieb:
Martin Matuska writes:
We decided not to go with v16 - the feature difference for FreeBSD
between v15 and v16 is zero.
(v16 = Common Multiprotocol SCSI Target (COMSTAR) for ISCSI export of
ZVOLS - we don't do ISCSI export (yet))//
Is there any hope to see COMSTAR in FreeBS
2010/7/5 Martin Matuska :
> Dear FreeBSD community,
>
> there has been a ZFS-related discussion at the meetBSD conference in
> Krakow, Poland and we agreed to push ZFS version 15 (and not 16) to
> -CURRENT.
>
> An upgrade to version 16 gives us no valuable features (to be true, no
> features at all
Martin Matuska writes:
Hello,
> We decided not to go with v16 - the feature difference for FreeBSD
> between v15 and v16 is zero.
> (v16 = Common Multiprotocol SCSI Target (COMSTAR) for ISCSI export of
> ZVOLS - we don't do ISCSI export (yet))//
Is there any hope to see COMSTAR in FreeBSD anyti
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gjxle?l=en&a=view
2010/7/7 Lev Serebryakov :
> Hello, .
> You wrote 7 июля 2010 г., 22:25:20:
>
>> If the target is FreeBSD 9 instead of 8.1, why not merge ZFS v19? 15
>> really doesn't give any major enhancements over 14 and FreeBSD 9 isn't
>> coming out
In the last episode (Jul 07), Lev Serebryakov said:
> You wrote 7 2010 ?., 22:25:20:
> > If the target is FreeBSD 9 instead of 8.1, why not merge ZFS v19? 15
> > really doesn't give any major enhancements over 14 and FreeBSD 9 isn't
> > coming out any time.
>
> > 19 would give much need log d
Hello, .
You wrote 7 июля 2010 г., 22:25:20:
> If the target is FreeBSD 9 instead of 8.1, why not merge ZFS v19? 15
> really doesn't give any major enhancements over 14 and FreeBSD 9 isn't
> coming out any time.
> 19 would give much need log device removal and triple parity RAID-Z.
> Both of whic
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jason J. W. Williams
wrote:
> If the target is FreeBSD 9 instead of 8.1, why not merge ZFS v19? 15
> really doesn't give any major enhancements over 14 and FreeBSD 9 isn't
> coming out any time.
>
> 19 would give much need log device removal and triple parity RAID-Z
If the target is FreeBSD 9 instead of 8.1, why not merge ZFS v19? 15
really doesn't give any major enhancements over 14 and FreeBSD 9 isn't
coming out any time.
19 would give much need log device removal and triple parity RAID-Z.
Both of which are well tested at this point via OpenSolaris.
-J
20
We decided not to go with v16 - the feature difference for FreeBSD
between v15 and v16 is zero.
(v16 = Common Multiprotocol SCSI Target (COMSTAR) for ISCSI export of
ZVOLS - we don't do ISCSI export (yet))//
Of course v16 pools cannot be downgraded. But I provided the patch for
testing only, not f
On 07/07/2010 09:28, Patrick Donnelly wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> 2010/7/5 Martin Matuska :
>> Dear FreeBSD community,
>>
>> there has been a ZFS-related discussion at the meetBSD conference in
>> Krakow, Poland and we agreed to push ZFS version 15 (and not 16) to
>> -CURRENT.
>
> This is great news!
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Patrick Donnelly wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> 2010/7/5 Martin Matuska :
>> Dear FreeBSD community,
>>
>> there has been a ZFS-related discussion at the meetBSD conference in
>> Krakow, Poland and we agreed to push ZFS version 15 (and not 16) to
>> -CURRENT.
>
> This is g
On 07/05/2010 07:50, Martin Matuska wrote:
> Direct link to the patch:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/v15/head-v15-v3.patch
>
> For full operation (commands zfs allow, unallow, userspace, grouspace)
> the python port must be installed, otherwise these comands don't work or
> have only
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Patrick Donnelly wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> 2010/7/5 Martin Matuska :
>> Dear FreeBSD community,
>>
>> there has been a ZFS-related discussion at the meetBSD conference in
>> Krakow, Poland and we agreed to push ZFS version 15 (and not 16) to
>> -CURRENT.
>
> This is g
Hi Martin,
2010/7/5 Martin Matuska :
> Dear FreeBSD community,
>
> there has been a ZFS-related discussion at the meetBSD conference in
> Krakow, Poland and we agreed to push ZFS version 15 (and not 16) to
> -CURRENT.
This is great news! Sorry for the newbie question but does this mean
it will be
Dear FreeBSD community,
there has been a ZFS-related discussion at the meetBSD conference in
Krakow, Poland and we agreed to push ZFS version 15 (and not 16) to
-CURRENT.
An upgrade to version 16 gives us no valuable features (to be true, no
features at all besides ability to import v16 pools).
A
Dear developers,
I would like to do a call for testing for my ZFS v15 patch.
As the user/group quotas feature is too much attractive for my needs,
I couldn't resist and have created (and debugged + tested) a ZFS v15
patch for head (applies cleanly against stable/8 as well).
It is a backport of s
44 matches
Mail list logo
