Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:09:46 +0200 From: Olivier Smedts <olivier@gid0.org> To: Martin Matuska <mm@freebsd.org> Cc: "Jason J. W. Williams" <jasonjwwilliams@gmail.com>, "Sam Fourman Jr." <sfourman@gmail.com>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] ZFS v15 patch (version 3) Message-ID: <AANLkTilbDH2ZpsAptm0F1DknGVXr35wJOSYZHWI8JAoR@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4C3594FF.8070907@FreeBSD.org> References: <4C31C71C.2010606@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTilPv4ujPjfexMQpEYZ7buk7oWwSS5B1l14Wjl0K@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinYeQtiCRSrLt6GAcrOcumugvPREizRrugXY5-0@mail.gmail.com> <4C357F0A.70009@FreeBSD.org> <AF7CFEEA-75A6-4AD5-BD5E-CCD33CEAC14E@gmail.com> <4C3594FF.8070907@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2010/7/8 Martin Matuska <mm@freebsd.org>: > 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 that do bugfixes or > introduce non-intrusive features like we did until now > - upgrade to higher versions in the future > > b) do not push anything, wait for a uncertain ammount of time and import > a higher version > - =C2=A0this might take months or even more than 1 year > - our project is not an anarchy or a dictatorship, so it has to be > argued, discussed, evaluated and publicly tested again > > As for me, I go for a). > > The recent ZFS code contains even more OpenSolaris specific parts, zvol > code probably needs to be reprogrammed once again and there are also > other features like autoexpansion of pools that need polishing. If you > want some future information, there are plans and already work to make > the very latest ZFS available. But its uncertainity again, I cannot give > you any dates but what is very probable that you won't see anything that > early. Of course any volunteers that are willing to help us porting ZFS > features are welcome :-) > > Now to the performance fixes for DB workloads - can you point me to the > code or tell me what do they do? > We have already now the prefetch improvements from v19 and ARC > improvements from v15 in stable/8. > Many parts of the OpenSolaris code can be very easily integrated without > breaking existing stuff and again, v15 is a very good starting point for > this. > > 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). I'm currently trying your patchset, I have updated versions of kernel and userland zfs code. Now, are there any benefits to upgrade the zpool and the zfs to the latest versions, besides quotas ? > Cheers, > mm > > D=C5=88a 8. 7. 2010 9:47, Jason J. W. Williams =C2=A0wrote / nap=C3=ADsal= (a): >> 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 OpenSo= laris bits are very stable. In most cases we've found ZFS under OSol to be = more stable than Solaris. Normally this is due to the youth of ZFS and the = speed with which bugs are being corrected...which end up in OSol while Sola= ris languishes under it's long release cycle. =C2=A0I'll posit Joyent as an= example here of the stability of OSol bits...they use the SXCE distro rece= ntly discontinued. >> >> v19 also includes a number of performance fixes for DB workloads. >> >> -J >> >> Sent via iPhone >> >> Is your e-mail Premiere? >> >> On Jul 8, 2010, at 1:32, Martin Matuska <mm@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> >> >>> 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 no= t >>> few) with untested code. >>> >>> D=C5=88a 7. 7. 2010 20:30, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote / nap=C3=ADsal(a): >>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jason J. W. Williams >>>> <jasonjwwilliams@gmail.com> 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. >>>>> Both of which are well tested at this point via OpenSolaris. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> these are very valid points, but I am not sure that anyone has zfs v19= patches >>>> >>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " > --=20 Olivier Smedts=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 _ =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ASCII ri= bbon campaign ( ) e-mail: olivier@gid0.org=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - against HTML email & = vCards=C2=A0 X www: http://www.gid0.org=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - against proprietary attachments / \ =C2=A0 "Il y a seulement 10 sortes de gens dans le monde : =C2=A0 ceux qui comprennent le binaire, =C2=A0 et ceux qui ne le comprennent pas."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTilbDH2ZpsAptm0F1DknGVXr35wJOSYZHWI8JAoR>