Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Link to the paper is http://labs.google.com/papers/disk_failures.pdf
As for the spares debate, that is easy: use spares :-)
What they missed to say is that you need to access the whole disk
frequently enough in order to give SMART the ability to
Sorry to insist but I am not aware of a small file problem
with ZFS (which doesn't mean there isn't one, nor that we
agree on definition of 'problem'). So if anyone has data on
this topic, I'm interested.
Also note, ZFS does a lot more than VxFS.
-r
Claude Teissedre writes:
Hello Roch,
Hello Nicholas,
Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 12:55:05 AM, you wrote:
On 2/19/07,Robert Milkowski[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
5. there's no simple answer to this question as it greatly depends on workload and data.
One thing you should keep in mind - Solaris *has* to boot in a 64bit
As I understand the issue, a readdirplus is
2X slower when data is already cached in the client
than when it is not.
Yes, that's the issue. It's not always 2X slower, but ALWAYS SLOWER.
My another 2runs on NFS/ZFS show:
1. real 3:14.185
user2.249
sys33.083
2.
Hello Jeremy,
Monday, February 19, 2007, 1:58:18 PM, you wrote:
Something similar was proposed here before and IIRC someone even has a
working implementation. I don't know what happened to it.
JT That would be me. AFAIK, no one really wanted it. The problem that it
JT solves can be solved by
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:07:41PM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Jeremy,
Monday, February 19, 2007, 1:58:18 PM, you wrote:
Something similar was proposed here before and IIRC someone even has a
working implementation. I don't know what happened to it.
JT That would be me.
Uwe,
It was also unclear to me that legacy mounts were causing your
troubles. The ZFS Admin Guide describes ZFS mounts and legacy
mounts, here:
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/6n7ht6qs6?a=view
Richard, I think we need some more basic troubleshooting info, such
as this mount failure.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/20/2007 08:10:59 AM:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:07:41PM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Jeremy,
Monday, February 19, 2007, 1:58:18 PM, you wrote:
Something similar was proposed here before and IIRC someone even has
a
working implementation. I
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 10:14:24AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/20/2007 08:10:59 AM:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:07:41PM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Jeremy,
Monday, February 19, 2007, 1:58:18 PM, you wrote:
Something similar was
On Feb 15, 2007, at 6:08 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello eric,
Wednesday, February 14, 2007, 5:04:01 PM, you wrote:
ek I'm wondering if we can just lower the amount of space we're
trying
ek to alloc as the pool becomes more fragmented - we'll lose a
little I/
ek O performance, but it
There's a fundamental problem with an undelete facility.
$ echo FILE
$ undelete FILE
cannot undelete FILE: file exists
Why the assumption that an undelete command would be brain dead -- this
IS
Unix. =) Seems like a low bar issue, if file exists and
On Feb 18, 2007, at 9:19 PM, Davin Milun wrote:
I have one that looks like this:
pool: preplica-1
state: ONLINE
status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data
corruption. Applications may be affected.
action: Restore the file in question if possible.
Roch
what's the minimum allocation size for a file in zfs? I get 1024B by
my calculation (1 x 512B block allocation (minimum) + 1 x 512B inode/
znode allocation) since we never pack file data in the inode/znode.
Is this a problem? Only if you're trying to pack a lot files small
byte
If you run a 'zpool scrub preplica-1', then the persistent error log
will be cleaned up. In the future, we'll have a background scrubber
to make your life easier.
eric
Eric,
Great news! Are there any details about how this will be implemented
yet? I am most curious to how
Hello eric,
Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 5:55:47 PM, you wrote:
ek On Feb 15, 2007, at 6:08 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello eric,
Wednesday, February 14, 2007, 5:04:01 PM, you wrote:
ek I'm wondering if we can just lower the amount of space we're
trying
ek to alloc as the pool becomes
On Feb 20, 2007, at 15:05, Krister Johansen wrote:
what's the minimum allocation size for a file in zfs? I get 1024B by
my calculation (1 x 512B block allocation (minimum) + 1 x 512B inode/
znode allocation) since we never pack file data in the inode/znode.
Is this a problem? Only if you're
begin crackly, broken record :)
I, for one, would love to have similar functionality that we had in good
old netware, where we could 'salvage' deleted files.
The concept was that when the files were deleted, they were not actually
removed, nor were the all important references to the files
ek If you were able to send over your complete pool, destroy the
ek existing one and re-create a new one using recv, then that should
ek help with fragmentation. That said, that's a very poor man's
ek defragger. The defragmentation should happen automatically or at
ek least while the pool is
Hello eric,
Tuesday, February 20, 2007, 11:29:41 PM, you wrote:
ek If you were able to send over your complete pool, destroy the
ek existing one and re-create a new one using recv, then that should
ek help with fragmentation. That said, that's a very poor man's
ek defragger. The
On 2/20/07, Nathan Kroenert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
begin crackly, broken record :)
I, for one, would love to have similar functionality that we had in good
old netware, where we could 'salvage' deleted files.
The concept was that when the files were deleted, they were not actually
removed,
On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you run a 'zpool scrub preplica-1', then the persistent error log
will be cleaned up. In the future, we'll have a background scrubber
to make your life easier.
eric
Eric,
Great news! Are there any details about how
I'd usually agree with that, but - if we have an opportunity to make
users love ZFS even more, why not at least investigate it.
A perfect example might be exactly what I did on one occasion, where I
copied a bunch of photos off a CF card. I then reformatted the CF card,
and cleaned up the the
It turns out that even rather poor prediction accuracy is good enough to make a
big difference (10x) in the failure probability of a RAID system.
See Gordon Hughes Joseph Murray, Reliability and Security of RAID Storage
Systems and D2D Archives Using SATA Disk Drives, ACM Transactions on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Schilling wrote:
What they missed to say is that you need to access the whole disk
frequently enough in order to give SMART the ability to work.
I thought modern disks could be instructed to do offline scanning,
using any idle time available.
24 matches
Mail list logo
