From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Harry Putnam
FreeNAS and freebsd.
Maybe you can give a little synopsis of those too. I mean when it
comes to utilizing zfs; is it much the same as if running it on
solaris?
For somebody
On 10/18/11 13:18, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
* btrfs is able to balance. (after adding new blank devices, rebalance, so
the data workload are distributed across all the devices.) zfs is not
able to do this yet.
ZFS does slightly biases new vdevs for new writes so that we will get to
a more
2011-10-18 16:26, Darren J Moffat пишет:
On 10/18/11 13:18, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
* btrfs is able to balance. (after adding new blank devices,
rebalance, so
the data workload are distributed across all the devices.) zfs is not
able to do this yet.
ZFS does slightly biases new vdevs for
On 10/18/11 14:04, Jim Klimov wrote:
2011-10-18 16:26, Darren J Moffat пишет:
On 10/18/11 13:18, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
* btrfs is able to balance. (after adding new blank devices,
rebalance, so
the data workload are distributed across all the devices.) zfs is not
able to do this yet.
ZFS
I looked into btrfs some time ago for the same reasons. I had a Linux system
that I wanted to do more intelligent things with storage.
However, I reverted to Ext3/4 and MD because of the portions of btrfs that
haven't been completed. It seems that btrfs development is very slow, which
Edward Ned Harvey opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com
writes:
I recently put my first btrfs system into production. Here are the
similarities/differences I noticed different between btrfs and zfs:
Great input.. thanks for the details.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Darren J Moffat
darr...@opensolaris.org wrote:
On 10/18/11 14:04, Jim Klimov wrote:
2011-10-18 16:26, Darren J Moffat пишет:
ZFS does slightly biases new vdevs for new writes so that we will get
to a more even spread. It doesn't go and move already written
Gregory Shaw greg.s...@oracle.com writes:
I looked into btrfs some time ago for the same reasons. I had a Linux
system that I wanted to do more intelligent things with storage.
Great details, thanks.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Gregory Shaw wrote:
I'm seriously thinking about converting the Linux system in question
into a FreeBSD system so that I can use ZFS.
FreeBSD is a wonderfully stable, coherent, and well-documented system
which has stood the test of time and has an excellent development
In message 201110150202.p9f22w2n000...@elvis.arl.psu.edu, John D Groenveld
writes:
I'm baffled why zpool import is unable to find the pool on the
drive, but the drive is definitely functional.
Per Richard Elling, it looks like ZFS is unable to find
the requisite labels for importing.
John
On 10/18/11 07:18 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Harry Putnam
As a common slob who isn't very skilled, I like to see some commentary
from some of the pros here as to any comparison of zfs against
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Gregory Shaw greg.s...@oracle.com wrote:
Another item that made me nervous was my experience with ZFS. Even when
called 'ready for production', a number of bugs were found that were pretty
nasty.
They've since been fixed (years ago), but there were some
Hi John,
I'm going to file a CR to get this issue reviewed by the USB team
first, but if you could humor me with another test:
Can you run newfs to create a UFS file system on this device
and mount it?
Thanks,
Cindy
On 10/18/11 08:18, John D Groenveld wrote:
In message
In message 4e9d98b1.8040...@oracle.com, Cindy Swearingen writes:
I'm going to file a CR to get this issue reviewed by the USB team
first, but if you could humor me with another test:
Can you run newfs to create a UFS file system on this device
and mount it?
# uname -srvp
SunOS 5.11 151.0.1.12
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson bfwil...@doit.wisc.edu wrote:
I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used to
make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24x7 5+ 9s uptime environments.
Where ZFS doesn't have an fsck command - and that really used to bug me
Yeah, okay, duh. I should have known that large sector size
support is only available for a non-root ZFS file system.
A couple more things if you're still interested:
1. If you re-create the pool on the whole disk, like this:
# zpool create foo c1t0d0
Then, resend the prtvtoc output for
On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used to
make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24x7 5+ 9s uptime environments.
Where ZFS doesn't have an fsck command -
In message 4e9da8b1.7020...@oracle.com, Cindy Swearingen writes:
1. If you re-create the pool on the whole disk, like this:
# zpool create foo c1t0d0
Then, resend the prtvtoc output for c1t0d0s0.
# zpool create snafu c1t0d0
# zpool status snafu
pool: snafu
state: ONLINE
scan: none requested
Hi Paul,
Your 1-3 is very sensible advice and I must ask about this
statement:
I have yet to have any data loss with ZFS.
Maybe this goes without saying, but I think you are using
ZFS redundancy.
Thanks,
Cindy
On 10/18/11 08:52, Paul Kraus wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Gregory
This is CR 7102272.
cs
On 10/18/11 10:50, John D Groenveld wrote:
In message 4e9da8b1.7020...@oracle.com, Cindy Swearingen writes:
1. If you re-create the pool on the whole disk, like this:
# zpool create foo c1t0d0
Then, resend the prtvtoc output for c1t0d0s0.
# zpool create snafu c1t0d0
On 10/18/11 11:46 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used to
make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24x7 5+ 9s uptime environments.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Mark Sandrock mark.sandr...@oracle.comwrote:
On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used
to
make ZFS 'not ready for
In message 4e9db04b.80...@oracle.com, Cindy Swearingen writes:
This is CR 7102272.
Anyone out there have Western Digital's competing 3TB Passport
drive handy to duplicate this bug?
John
groenv...@acm.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Cindy Swearingen
cindy.swearin...@oracle.com wrote:
Your 1-3 is very sensible advice
Unfortunately, I don't think I have ever seen the recommendations
I made stated quite so plainly.
and I must ask about this
statement:
I have yet to have any data loss
On 10/19/11 03:12 AM, Paul Kraus wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Darren J Moffat
darr...@opensolaris.org wrote:
On 10/18/11 14:04, Jim Klimov wrote:
2011-10-18 16:26, Darren J Moffat пишет:
ZFS does slightly biases new vdevs for new writes so that we will get
to a more even spread.
On 10/19/11 01:18 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I recently put my first btrfs system into production. Here are the
similarities/differences I noticed different between btrfs and zfs:
Differences:
* Obviously, one is meant for linux and the other solaris (etc)
* In btrfs, there is only raid1.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:05:29 -0500, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
Doesn't a scrub do more than what
'fsck' does?
Not really. fsck will work on an offline filesystem to correct errors and
bring it back online. Scrub won't even work until the filesystem is already
imported and online. If
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Kees Nuyt k.n...@zonnet.nl wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:05:29 -0500, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
Doesn't a scrub do more than what
'fsck' does?
Not really. fsck will work on an offline filesystem to correct errors
and
bring it back online. Scrub
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
Every scrub I've ever done that has found an error required manual fixing.
Every pool I've ever created has been raid-z or raid-z2, so the silent
healing, while a great story, has never actually happened in practice in any
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble peter.trib...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
Every scrub I've ever done that has found an error required manual
fixing.
Every pool I've ever created has been raid-z or raid-z2, so the silent
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble peter.trib...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
Every scrub I've ever done that has found an error required manual
fixing.
Every
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Peter Tribble peter.trib...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble peter.trib...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatically fixed it.
You're the first person I've heard that has had it automatically fix it.
I have had ZFS automatically repair corrupted raw data when one
component of the
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatically fixed it.
You're the first person I've heard that has had it automatically fix it.
Well, here comes another person - I have ZFS automatically fixing
corrupted data on
On 10/19/11 09:31 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatically fixed
it. You're the first person I've heard that has had it automatically
fix it.
I'm another, I have had many cases of ZFS fixing corrupted data on a
number of different pool
On 2011-Oct-18 23:18:02 +1100, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
I recently put my first btrfs system into production. Here are the
similarities/differences I noticed different between btrfs and zfs:
Thanks for that.
* zfs has storage tiering. (cache
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Doesn't a scrub do more than what 'fsck' does?
It does different things. I'm not sure about more.
Zfs scrub validates user data while 'fsck' does not. I consider that
as being definitely more.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us,
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Gregory Shaw greg.s...@oracle.com wrote:
I came to the conclusion that btrfs isn't ready for prime time. I'll
re-evaluate as development continues and the missing portions are provided.
For someone with @oracle.com email address, you could probably arrive
to
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
I recently put my first btrfs system into production. Here are the
similarities/differences I noticed different between btrfs and zfs:
Differences:
* Obviously, one is meant for linux
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus
I have done a poor man's rebalance by copying data after adding
devices. I know this is not a substitute for a real online rebalance,
but it gets the job done (if you can take the
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook
I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatically fixed
it. You're the first person I've heard that has had it automatically fix
it.
That's probably just because it's
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Doesn't a scrub do more than what 'fsck' does?
It does different things. I'm not sure about more.
Zfs scrub validates user
From: Fajar A. Nugraha [mailto:w...@fajar.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:46 PM
* In btrfs, there is no equivalent or alternative to zfs send | zfs
receive
Planned. No actual working implementation yet.
In fact, I saw, actual work started on this task about a month ago. So it's
On Oct 18, 2011, at 20:26, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Yes, but when scrub encounters uncorrectable errors, it doesn't attempt to
correct them. Fsck will do things like recover lost files into the
lost+found directory, and stuff like that...
You say recover lost files like you know that they're
On Oct 18, 2011, at 20:35, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
In fact, I saw, actual work started on this task about a month ago. So it's
not just planned, it's really in the works. Now we're talking open source
timelines here, which means, you'll get it when it's ready, and nobody
knows when that
On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:35, Brian Wilson wrote:
Where ZFS doesn't have an fsck command - and that really used to bug me - it
does now have a -F option on zpool import. To me it's the same functionality
for my environment - the ability to try to roll back to a 'hopefully' good
state and get
46 matches
Mail list logo
