9.10 is now in Nightlies testing

[jdong]

Will it work in 8GB RAM? My new skylake is currently waiting, and old machine is poor indeed.

Based off what an earlier commenter said, I wouldn't recommend it. Sounds like this version is less tolerant of low memory setups.

 

[mav@]

Will it work in 8GB RAM? My new skylake is currently waiting, and old machine is poor indeed.

System requirements should not change dramatically. All depends on expected load. For example, RAM usage for L2ARC headers in 9.10 is even twice lower. Though the more memory is always better.

 

[bestboy]

uh... that's interesting. With 9.3 we did not even think about using L2ARC below 64 GB of RAM due to the indexing overhead. Does that mean that 9.10 might drop this threshold to 32 GB? That would be awesome news to all users of E3s as they cap out at 32 GB.

 

[mav@]

With 9.3 we did not even think about using L2ARC below 64 GB of RAM due to the indexing overhead. Does that mean that 9.10 might drop this threshold to 32 GB?

Original developers goal was to double maximal L2ARC size on system with 60GB RAM, but opposite is also possible. Though while idnexing overhead is the most strict factor here, there are others. For example, if too small ARC trashed too often, it may be unable to properly identify frequently used blocks to fill L2ARC efficiently. But that even more depends on specific workload to predict.

 

[bestboy]

That's great. Someone needs to test one of those new, cheap Samsung 950 Pro NVMe SSDs [1][2] as L2ARC on a maxed out E3 setup with 9.10.
A slightly over provisioned 256 GB version for 180 EUR could be a very nice L2ARC allowing for an ARC-to-L2ARC ratio between 1:4 and 1:6. :D

 

[dAlexis]

System requirements should not change dramatically. All depends on expected load. For example, RAM usage for L2ARC headers in 9.10 is even twice lower. Though the more memory is always better.

Thanks! 4 me it's important just to migrate and perform a first launch to have working config, next I'll change hardware to 16 GB & skylake.

 

[cyr]

That's great. Someone needs to test one of those new, cheap Samsung 950 Pro NVMe SSDs [1][2] as L2ARC on a maxed out E3 setup with 9.10.
A slightly over provisioned 256 GB version for 180 EUR could be a very nice L2ARC allowing for an ARC-to-L2ARC ratio between 1:4 and 1:6. :D

I have that (E3 1220Lv2, 32G RAM and 256G 950Pro in a PCIe carrier).
Works very well with the 9.10 nightlies. In fact, the reason I jumped on them is that I had a couple of hangs/reboots with 9.3 since upgrading to this L2ARC.

 

[Rand]

Has anyone tested/optimized Intel x550's (10GBe) yet? It works but its relatively slow (~250 MB/s)

 

[jgreco]

That's great. Someone needs to test one of those new, cheap Samsung 950 Pro NVMe SSDs [1][2] as L2ARC on a maxed out E3 setup with 9.10.
A slightly over provisioned 256 GB version for 180 EUR could be a very nice L2ARC allowing for an ARC-to-L2ARC ratio between 1:4 and 1:6. :D

I've been running the 512GB 950 Pro as L2ARC since it was introduced, on 9.3 on an E5 setup, and actually just ordered a second one recently. The main problem with E3 is that you're short on RAM so the decision making process on what to evict is going to be much less optimal than if you have the larger pool of RAM helping out. The new reduced size of header entries doesn't do much to fix that. Adding L2ARC always feels nicer than it actually is in reality, because if you're adding L2ARC too aggressively, it may be a sign that you'd actually benefit from more ARC.

In my case, I'm doing it as an optimization because of iSCSI. With 128GB of RAM and the working set we've got here, the 768GB of L2ARC does eventually fill but only after a week or so, but things get kind of slow doing backups due to fragmentation. L2ARC helps a lot with that. Going out to 1TB will make a dent in that.

 

[Cellobita]

I don't have a machine where I can check the latest versions of 9.10 to see what's included, so let me ask: will you manage to pull in Samba 4.3.6 prior to releasing?

 

[mav@]

will you manage to pull in Samba 4.3.6 prior to releasing?

Now there is samba43-4.3.4_100116.

 

[jgreco]

Now there is samba43-4.3.4_100116.

Perhaps someone should update the release notes

http://download.freenas.org/9.10/MASTER/201603210530/ReleaseNotes

Says 4.1.17

 

[mav@]

Perhaps someone should update the release notes
http://download.freenas.org/9.10/MASTER/201603210530/ReleaseNotes
Says 4.1.17

That is in progress now.

 

[Mirfster]

I'd check /var/log/samba4/log.smbd

Does this mean samba 4 is part of this version and can handle GPOs too?

 

[anodos]

Does this mean samba 4 is part of this version and can handle GPOs too?

Samba 4 has been a part of freenas for a while. As far as GPO goes, in theory you can use rsat to create GPOs for a samba4 domain. I haven't tried this myself soi can't testify as to whether it works or how well it works.

 

[Mirfster]

Thx, guess I should have checked first.. :) Well, off to some testing I go then.

 

[Rand]

Has anyone tested/optimized Intel x550's (10GBe) yet? It works but its relatively slow (~250 MB/s)

Sorry for quoting myself, but I got it to perform quite good.
Will add the details in the 10gbe thread.

 

[jlpellet]

Has anyone tried to delete earlier 9.10 boot partitions? On the system I've been testing it on, I can delete the 9.3 partition but not any of the 9.10 tests, as shown in attached. If not just me, I can file a bug report but thought it worth the general query first.

 

[ThreeDee]

Has anyone tried to delete earlier 9.10 boot partitions? On the system I've been testing it on, I can delete the 9.3 partition but not any of the 9.10 tests, as shown in attached. If not just me, I can file a bug report but thought it worth the general query first.

I have 3 entries that won't delete like that "FreNAS 3bbdebla bla bla long string of numbers and letters"

 

[Ericloewe]

You'll want to file a bug report for that issue.