Ian Collins wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
Cherry Shu wrote:
Are any plans for an API that would allow ZFS commands including
snapshot/rollback integrated with customer's application?
libzfs.h?
The API in there is Contracted Consolidation Private. Note that
private
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Miles Nordin wrote:
And the guarantees ARE minimal---just:
http://www.google.com/search?q=POSIX+%22crash+consistency%22
and you'll find even people against T'so's who want to change ext4
still agree POSIX is on T'so's side.
Clearly I am guilty of inflated expectations.
bf == Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us writes:
bf If ZFS does try to order its disk updates in cronological
bf order without prioritizing metadata updates over data, then
bf the risk is minimized.
AIUI it doesn't exactly order them, just puts them into 5-second
chunks.
Hi:
What is the most common practice for allocating (choosing) the two disks
used for
the boot drives, in a zfs root install, for the mirrored rpool?
The docs for thumper, and many blogs, always point at cfgadm slots 0 and 1,
which are sata3/0 and sata/3/4, which most often map to c5t0d0 and
Hi Neal,
This example needs to be updated with a ZFS root pool. It could
also be that I mapped the wrong boot disks in this example.
You can name the root pool what ever you want, rpool, mpool,
mypool.
In these examples, I was using rpool for RAIDZ pool and mpool
for mirrored pool, not knowing
I'm finally getting close to the setup I wanted, after quite a bit of
experimentation and bugging these lists endlessly.
So first, thanks for your tolerance and patience.
My setup consists of 4 disks. One holds the OS (rpool) and 3 more all
the same model and brand, all 500gb.
I've created a
IIRC, that's about right. If you look at the zfs best practices wiki
(genunix.org I think?), there should be some space calculations linked
in there somewhere.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
I'm finally getting close to the setup I wanted, after quite a
This verifies my guess:
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide#RAID-Z_Configuration_Requirements_and_Recommendations
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC, that's about right. If you look at the zfs best practices wiki
On 19 March, 2009 - Harry Putnam sent me these 1,4K bytes:
I'm finally getting close to the setup I wanted, after quite a bit of
experimentation and bugging these lists endlessly.
So first, thanks for your tolerance and patience.
My setup consists of 4 disks. One holds the OS (rpool) and
fsync() is, indeed, expensive. Lots of calls to fsync() that are not
necessary for correct application operation EXCEPT as a workaround for
lame filesystem re-ordering are a sure way to kill performance.
IMO the fundamental problem is that the only way to achieve a write
barrier is fsync()
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Harry Putnam wrote:
I've created a zpool in raidz1 configuration with:
zpool create zbk raidz1 c3d0 c4d0 c4d1
This is not a very useful configuration. With this number of disks,
it is best to use two of them to build a mirror, and save the other
disk for something
James,
The links to the Part 1 and Part 2 demos on this page (http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/avs/Demos/
) appear to be broken.
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/avs/Demos/AVS-ZFS-Demo-V1/
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/avs/Demos/AVS-ZFS-Demo-V2/
They still work for me.
Can we assume that any snapshot listed by either 'zfs list -t snapshot' or
'ls .zfs/snapshot' and previously created with 'zfs receive' is complete and
correct? Or is it possible for a 'zfs receive' command to fail
(corrupt/truncated stream, sigpipe, etc...) and a corrupt or incomplete
snapshot to
Uh, I should probably clarify some things (I was too quick to hit
send):
IMO the fundamental problem is that the only way to achieve a write
barrier is fsync() (disregarding direct I/O etc). Again I would just
like an fbarrier() as I've mentioned on the list previously. It seems
Of course if
José Gomes wrote:
Can we assume that any snapshot listed by either 'zfs list -t
snapshot' or 'ls .zfs/snapshot' and previously created with 'zfs
receive' is complete and correct? Or is it possible for a 'zfs
receive' command to fail (corrupt/truncated stream, sigpipe, etc...)
and a corrupt or
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Harry Putnam wrote:
I've created a zpool in raidz1 configuration with:
zpool create zbk raidz1 c3d0 c4d0 c4d1
This is not a very useful configuration. With this number of disks,
it is best to use two of them to build a mirror, and save the
José Gomes wrote:
Can we assume that any snapshot listed by either 'zfs list -t snapshot'
or 'ls .zfs/snapshot' and previously created with 'zfs receive' is
complete and correct? Or is it possible for a 'zfs receive' command to
fail (corrupt/truncated stream, sigpipe, etc...) and a corrupt or
Tomas Ögren st...@acc.umu.se writes:
I was under the impression raidz1 would take something like 20%.. but
this is more like 33.33%.
So, is this to be expected or is something wrong here?
Not a percentage at all.. raidz1 takes 1 disk. raidz2 takes 2 disks.
This is to be able to handle 1
Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com writes:
With five disks, raidz1 becomes useful.
+1
also remember that you can add mirrors later. For best data availability,
start with 2 mirrored disks, each split in half. As your data requirements
grow, add mirrored halves. For diversity, make
I'd be careful about raidz unless you have either:
1 - automatic notification of failure set up using fmadm
2 - at least one hot spare
Because raidz is parity-based (it does some math-magic to give you
redundancy), replacing a disk that's failed can take a very long time
compared to mirror
Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com writes:
I'd be careful about raidz unless you have either:
1 - automatic notification of failure set up using fmadm
2 - at least one hot spare
Sorry to be so dense here but can you expand a little on what a `hot
spare' is. Do you mean just a spare similar sized
21 matches
Mail list logo
