On 1/8/09, Bill Sommerfeld sommerf...@sun.com wrote:
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 22:18 -0700, Neil Perrin wrote:
I vaguely remember a time when UFS had limits to prevent
ordinary users from consuming past a certain limit, allowing
only the super-user to use it. Not that I'm advocating that
--On 06 January 2009 16:37 -0800 Carson Gaspar car...@taltos.org wrote:
On 1/6/2009 4:19 PM, Sam wrote:
I was hoping that this was the problem (because just buying more
discs is the cheapest solution given time=$$) but running it by
somebody at work they said going over 90% can cause
Ok so the capacity is ruled out, it still bothers me that after experiencing
the error if I do a 'zpool status' it just hangs (forever) but if I reboot the
system everything comes back up fine (for a little while).
Last night I installed the latest SXDE and I'm going to see if that fixes it,
: [zfs-discuss] Problems at 90% zpool capacity 2008.05
Ok so the capacity is ruled out, it still bothers me that after
experiencing the error if I do a 'zpool status' it just hangs (forever)
but if I reboot the system everything comes back up fine (for a little
while).
Last night I
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Sam s...@smugmug.com wrote:
Ok so the capacity is ruled out, it still bothers me that after
experiencing the error if I do a 'zpool status' it just hangs (forever) but
if I reboot the system everything comes back up fine (for a little while).
Last night I
On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:18:40 -0700, Neil Perrin
neil.per...@sun.com wrote:
I vaguely remember a time when UFS had limits to prevent
ordinary users from consuming past a certain limit, allowing
only the super-user to use it. Not that I'm advocating that
approach for ZFS.
I know that approach from
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 22:18 -0700, Neil Perrin wrote:
I vaguely remember a time when UFS had limits to prevent
ordinary users from consuming past a certain limit, allowing
only the super-user to use it. Not that I'm advocating that
approach for ZFS.
looks to me like zfs already provides a
It is not recommended to store more than 90% on any file system, I think. For
instance, NTFS can behave very badly when it runs out of space. Similar to if
you fill up your RAM and you have no swap space. Then the computer starts to
thrash badly. Not recommended. Avoid 90% and above, and you
I was hoping that this was the problem (because just buying more discs is the
cheapest solution given time=$$) but running it by somebody at work they said
going over 90% can cause decreased performance but is unlikely to cause the
strange errors I'm seeing. However, I think I'll stick a 1TB
On 1/6/2009 4:19 PM, Sam wrote:
I was hoping that this was the problem (because just buying more
discs is the cheapest solution given time=$$) but running it by
somebody at work they said going over 90% can cause decreased
performance but is unlikely to cause the strange errors I'm seeing.
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Sam s...@smugmug.com wrote:
I was hoping that this was the problem (because just buying more discs is
the cheapest solution given time=$$) but running it by somebody at work they
said going over 90% can cause decreased performance but is unlikely to cause
the
Since zfs is so smart is other areas is there a particular reason why a high
water mark is not calculated and the available space not reset to this?
I'd far rather have a zpool of 1000GB that said it only had 900GB but did
not have corruption as it ran out of space.
Nicholas
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Nicholas Lee emptysa...@gmail.com wrote:
Since zfs is so smart is other areas is there a particular reason why a
high water mark is not calculated and the available space not reset to this?
I'd far rather have a zpool of 1000GB that said it only had 900GB but
.
- Original Message -
From: Tim
To: Nicholas Lee
Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org ; Sam
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Problems at 90% zpool capacity 2008.05
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Nicholas Lee emptysa...@gmail.com wrote:
Since
On 01/06/09 21:25, Nicholas Lee wrote:
Since zfs is so smart is other areas is there a particular reason why a
high water mark is not calculated and the available space not reset to this?
I'd far rather have a zpool of 1000GB that said it only had 900GB but
did not have corruption as it
15 matches
Mail list logo
