Hello eric,
Thursday, July 27, 2006, 4:34:16 AM, you wrote:
ek Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello George,
Wednesday, July 26, 2006, 7:27:04 AM, you wrote:
GW Additionally, I've just putback the latest feature set and bugfixes
GW which will be part of s10u3_03. There were some additional
Eric said:
For U3, these are the performance fixes:
6424554 full block re-writes need not read data in
6440499 zil should avoid txg_wait_synced() and use dmu_sync()
to issue
parallelIOs when fsyncing
6447377 ZFS prefetch is inconsistant
6373978 want to take lots of snapshots quickly ('zfs
For S10U3, RR is 11/13/06 and GA is 11/27/06.
Gary
Bennett, Steve wrote:
Eric said:
For U3, these are the performance fixes:
6424554 full block re-writes need not read data in
6440499 zil should avoid txg_wait_synced() and use dmu_sync()
to issue
parallelIOs when fsyncing
I saw this question over in zones-discuss and thought the ZFS
team could add something useful. If I read the caution right,
I'll have to re-think my disk allocation strategy...
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL:
Hi,
I m sure some of you may have heard this already
' ZFS is a reverse engineered WAFL'
from NetApp guys. If not, you will soon...
Has anyone put together a white paper or a
presentation or some bullet points positioning ZFS vs
WAFL.
S10 and ZFS is opensource is great but If there is
some
The original reasoning was that we didn't have enough time to validate
the behavior of the zone upgrade tools with ZFS as the root filesystem,
particularly as these tools (Ashanti, Zulu) are a moving target.
Upon closer inspection, we found that this scenario should work with
the current upgrade
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Eric Schrock wrote:
The original reasoning was that we didn't have enough time to validate
the behavior of the zone upgrade tools with ZFS as the root filesystem,
particularly as these tools (Ashanti, Zulu) are a moving target.
Upon closer inspection, we found that this
Timing is everything :-)
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-6612
-- richard
Richard Elling wrote:
Craig Morgan wrote:
Spare a thought also for the remote serviceability aspects of these
systems, if customers raise calls/escalations against such systems
then our remote support/solution
On 7/27/06, Praveen Mogili [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I m sure some of you may have heard this already
' ZFS is a reverse engineered WAFL'
from NetApp guys. If not, you will soon...
Has anyone put together a white paper or a
presentation or some bullet points positioning ZFS vs
WAFL.
S10
Eric Schrock wrote:
Upon closer inspection, we found that this scenario should work with
the current upgrade solution. What will definitely not work is to
delegate a ZFS dataset to a local zone, and then place system software
(i.e. Solaris package contents) within such a filesystem. This
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 08:20:56PM +0200, Robert Milkowski wrote:
btw: I belive it was discussed here before - it would be great if one
would automatically convert given directory on zfs filesystem into zfs
filesystem (without actually copying all data)
Yep, and an RFE filed: 6400399 want zfs
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 06:30:46PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
... but I have to ask.
How do I back this up?
The following two RFEs would help you out enormously:
6421958 want recursive zfs send ('zfs send -r')
6421959 want zfs send to preserve properties ('zfs send -p')
As far as RFEs
From a RAS perspective, ZFS's end-to-end data integrity feature is critical.
If the competing file system doesn't have this capability, then they can't play
in this sandbox.
-- richard
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
one more time with the attachment
I wouldn't say that either system had Raid-5. Both raid-4 and raid-z
have significant differences in how they work from raid-5.
Netapp certainly has quotas, but they're not as flexible as ZFS.
Can you explain more what you mean by 'Raw device' and 'volume
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:17:47AM -0700, Praveen Mogili wrote:
S10 and ZFS is opensource is great but If there is
some solid material with technical detailsI would
really appreciate it.
The ZFS on-disk file format is here:
On 7/27/06, Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one more time with the attachment
I wouldn't say that either system had Raid-5. Both raid-4 and raid-z
have significant differences in how they work from raid-5.
Netapp certainly has quotas, but they're not as flexible as ZFS.
Can you
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 03:54:02PM -0400, Christine Tran wrote:
- What is the compression algorithm used?
It is based on the Lempel-Ziv algorithm.
- Is there a ZFS feature that will output the real uncompressed size of
the data? The scenario is if they had to move a compressed ZFS
Hi Robert,
The fix for 6424554 is being backported to S10 and will be available in
S10U3, later this year.
-- Fred
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello zfs-discuss,
Is someone working on a backport (patch) to S10? Any timeframe?
begin:vcard
fn:Fred Zlotnick
n:Zlotnick;Fred
org:Sun Microsystems,
Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since ZFS is COW, can I have a read-only pool (on a central file
server, or on a DVD, etc) with a separate block-differential pool on
my local hard disk to store writes?
This way, the pool in use can be read-write, even if the main pool
itself is read-only,
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 08:17:03PM -0500, Malahat Qureshi wrote:
Is there any way to boot of from zfs disk work around ??
Yes, see
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/tabriz?entry=are_you_ready_to_rumble
--mat
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
I've a non-mirrored zfs file systems which shows the status below. I saw
the thread in the archives about working this out but it looks like ZFS
messages have changed. How do I find out what file(s) this is?
[...]
errors: The following persistent errors have been detected:
21 matches
Mail list logo
