From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 8 19:19:09 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8995106566B; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:19:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jasonjwwilliams@gmail.com) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E07B8FC15; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 19:19:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws6 with SMTP id 6so1808334vws.13 for ; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:19:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=nNXVLgJt7O0ERWkKLwyy/Ja1kzLW7gHWbwEMH6TNEhM=; b=LTmEcc/9Gt1ueIstt7GuAZ44O5E8IDE54WGP87LgJT8iXJ9QtXpSfsilYFyw71uDtE r7p7RJbllWFeouRV2XpS8qs4KCZqfGgrf4u99llXXY/X/QawUfAq4RfPZTvddLxag/C4 bayrO0e0QDer76JNaYnWosd+aCxgLyKbprpjs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=giGHLYCDuc4j0tLV1hkVRi6ZNvM0XKXiVfNa6CE8JWKFyKv2Qwq2aEJvj69I5UFYje I8MPryll55zCGY6N1W1NcZdUvshZ8bA/2MhLsh1GJs/MlOL7/r4RSbFr3Uq1NscOZ1X/ EB9aN9aS8tJchAXAmhC0jE5KC0U+gvU/ySowE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.162.148 with SMTP id v20mr4390749vcx.176.1278616741121; Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.202.68 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jul 2010 12:19:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C3594FF.8070907@FreeBSD.org> References: <4C31C71C.2010606@FreeBSD.org> <4C357F0A.70009@FreeBSD.org> <4C3594FF.8070907@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 13:19:01 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Jason J. W. Williams" To: Martin Matuska Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "Sam Fourman Jr." , "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: [CFT] ZFS v15 patch (version 3) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:19:09 -0000 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 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). > > 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 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 >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >