Torrey McMahon wrote:
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
The problem that this feature attempts to address is when you have
some data that is more important (and thus needs a higher level of
redundancy) than other data. Of course in some situations you can use
multiple pools, but that is antithetical to
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On 9/12/06, eric kustarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So it seems to me that having this feature per-file is really useful.
Say i have a presentation to give in Pleasanton, and the presentation
lives on my single-disk laptop - I want all the meta-data and the actual
Torrey McMahon wrote:
eric kustarz wrote:
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Here is a proposal for a new 'copies' property which would allow
different levels of replication for different filesystems.
Thanks everyone for your input.
The problem that this feature attempts to
On 13/09/06, Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dick Davies wrote:
But they raise a lot of administrative issues
Sure, especially if you choose to change the copies property on an
existing filesystem. However, if you only set it at filesystem creation
time (which is the recommended
I think this is user error: the man page explicitly says:
-f Forces import, even if the pool appears to be
potentially active.
and that's exactly what you did. If the behaviour had been the same without
the -f option, I guess this would be a bug.
HTH
On 9/13/06, Thomas Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW -- did I guess right wrt where I need to set arc.c_max (etc/system)?
I think you need to use mdb. As Mark and Johansen mentioned, only do
this as your last resort.
# mdb -kw
arc::print -a c_max
d3b0f874 c_max = 0x1d0fe800
d3b0f874 /W
Well, we are using the -f parameter to test failover functionality.
If one system with mounted ZFS is down, we have to use the force to mount it on
the failover system.
But when the failed system comes online again, it remounts the ZFS without
errors, so it is mounted simultanously on both
Mathias F wrote:
Well, we are using the -f parameter to test failover functionality.
If one system with mounted ZFS is down, we have to use the force to mount it on
the failover system.
But when the failed system comes online again, it remounts the ZFS without
errors, so it is mounted
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 12:28:23PM +0200, Michael Schuster wrote:
Mathias F wrote:
Well, we are using the -f parameter to test failover functionality.
If one system with mounted ZFS is down, we have to use the force to mount
it on the failover system.
But when the failed system comes
Since we were just talking about resilience on laptops,
I wondered if it there had been any progress in sorting
some of the glitches that were involved in:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=25144#25144
?
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
Without -f option, the ZFS can't be imported while reserved for the other
host, even if that host is down.
As I said, we are testing ZFS as a [b]replacement for VxVM[/b], which we are
using atm. So as a result our tests have failed and we have to keep on using
Veritas.
Thanks for all your
On 9/13/06, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Mirroring offers slightly better redundancy, because one disk from
each mirror can fail without data loss.
Is this use of slightly based upon disk failure modes? That is, when
disks fail do they tend to get isolated areas of badness
On 9/13/06, Mike Gerdts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only part of the proposal I don't like is space accounting.
Double or triple charging for data will only confuse those apps and
users that check for free space or block usage.
Why exactly isn't reporting the free space divided by the copies
Mathias F wrote:
Without -f option, the ZFS can't be imported while reserved for the other
host, even if that host is down.
As I said, we are testing ZFS as a [b]replacement for VxVM[/b], which we are
using atm. So as a result our tests have failed and we have to keep on using
Veritas.
Mathias F wrote:
Without -f option, the ZFS can't be imported while reserved for the other
host, even if that host is down.
This is the correct behaviour. What do you want to cause? data corruption?
As I said, we are testing ZFS as a [b]replacement for VxVM[/b], which we
are using atm. So as
On 13/09/2006, at 2:29 AM, Eric Schrock wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 07:23:00AM -0400, Jeff A. Earickson wrote:
Modify the dovecot IMAP server so that it can get zfs quota
information
to be able to implement the QUOTA feature of the IMAP protocol
(RFC 2087).
In this case pull the zfs
Hi Mathias,
Mathias F wrote:
Without -f option, the ZFS can't be imported while reserved for the other
host, even if that host is down.
As I said, we are testing ZFS as a [b]replacement for VxVM[/b], which we are
using atm. So as a result our tests have failed and we have to keep on using
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Torrey McMahon wrote:
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
The problem that this feature attempts to address is when you have
some data that is more important (and thus needs a higher level of
redundancy) than other data. Of course in some situations you can
Mathias F wrote:
I think I get the whole picture, let me summarise:
- you create a pool P and an FS on host A
- Host A crashes
- you import P on host B; this only works with -f, as
zpool import otherwise
refuses to do so.
- now P is imported on B
- host A comes back up and re-accesses P,
Mathias F wrote:
...
Yes it is, you got it ;) VxVM just notices that it's previously imported
DiskGroup(s) (for ZFS this is the Pool) were failed over and doesn't try to
re-acquire them. It waits for an admin action.
The topic of clustering ZFS is not the problem atm, we just test the
failover
James C. McPherson wrote:
As I understand things, SunCluster 3.2 is expected to have support for
HA-ZFS
and until that version is released you will not be running in a supported
configuration and so any errors you encounter are *your fault alone*.
Still, after reading Mathias's
Hi,
I'm running some experiments with zfs send and receive on Solaris 10u2
between two different machines. On server 1 I have the following
data/zones/app1838M 26.5G 836M /zones/app1
data/zones/[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.35M - 832M -
I have a script that creates a new snapshot
[...]
a product which is *not* currently multi-host-aware to
behave in the
same safe manner as one which is.
That`s the point we figured out while testing it ;)
I just wanted to have our thoughts reviewed by other ZFS users.
Our next steps IF the failover would have succeeded would be to
Hello Frank,
Tuesday, September 12, 2006, 9:41:05 PM, you wrote:
FC It would be interesting to have a zfs enabled HBA to offload the checksum
FC and parity calculations. How much of zfs would such an HBA have to
FC understand?
That won't be end-to-end checksuming anymore, right?
That way you
Hello Philippe,
It was recommended to lower ncsize and I did (to default ~128K).
So far it works ok for last days and staying at about 1GB free ram
(fluctuating between 900MB-1,4GB).
Do you think it's a long term solution or with more load and more data
the problem can surface again even with
Hello Thomas,
Tuesday, September 12, 2006, 7:40:25 PM, you wrote:
TB Hi,
TB We have been using zfs for a couple of months now, and, overall, really
TB like it. However, we have run into a major problem -- zfs's memory
TB requirements
TB crowd out our primary application. Ultimately, we have
Hello Matthew,
Tuesday, September 12, 2006, 7:57:45 PM, you wrote:
MA Ben Miller wrote:
I had a strange ZFS problem this morning. The
entire system would
hang when mounting the ZFS filesystems. After
trial and error I
determined that the problem was with one of the
2500 ZFS
My customer is running java on a ZFS file system. His platform is Soalris 10
x86 SF X4200. When he enabled ZFS his memory of 18 gigs drops to 2 gigs rather
quickly. I had him do a # ps -e -o pid,vsz,comm | sort -n +1 and it came back:
The culprit application you see is java:
507 89464
Hi,
There's something really bizarre in ZFS snaphot specs : Uses no separate
backing store. .
Hum...if I want to mutualize one physical volume somewhere in my SAN as THE
snaphots backing-store...it becomes impossible to do ! Really bad.
Is there any chance to have a backing-store-file
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:38:22AM -0700, Nicolas Dorfsman wrote:
There's something really bizarre in ZFS snaphot specs : Uses no separate
backing store. .
It's not at all bizarre once you understand how ZFS works. I'd suggest
reading through some of the documentation available at
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Philippe,
It was recommended to lower ncsize and I did (to default ~128K).
So far it works ok for last days and staying at about 1GB free ram
(fluctuating between 900MB-1,4GB).
Do you think it's a long term solution or with more load and more data
the problem can
Nicolas Dorfsman wrote:
Hi,
There's something really bizarre in ZFS snaphot specs : Uses no
separate backing store. .
Hum...if I want to mutualize one physical volume somewhere in my SAN
as THE snaphots backing-store...it becomes impossible to do !
Really bad.
Is there any chance to have a
I ran the DTrace script and the resulting output is rather large (1 million
lines and 65MB), so I won't burden this forum with that much data. Here are the
top 100 lines from the DTrace output. Let me know if you need the full output
and I'll figure out a way for the group to get it.
dtrace:
On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 02:30, Richard Elling wrote:
The field data I have says that complete disk failures are the exception.
I hate to leave this as a teaser, I'll expand my comments later.
That matches my anecdotal experience with laptop drives; maybe I'm just
lucky, or maybe I'm just paying
It would be interesting to have a zfs enabled HBA to offload the checksum
and parity calculations. How much of zfs would such an HBA have to
understand?
That's an interesting question.
For parity, it's actually pretty easy. One can envision an HBA which took a
group of related write commands
Jill Manfield writes:
My customer is running java on a ZFS file system. His platform is Soalris
10 x86 SF X4200. When he enabled ZFS his memory of 18 gigs drops to 2 gigs
rather quickly. I had him do a # ps -e -o pid,vsz,comm | sort -n +1 and it
came back:
The culprit
Well.
ZFS isn't copy-on-write in the same way that things
like ufssnap are.
ufssnap is copy-on-write in that when you write
something, it copies out
the old data and writes it somewhere else (the
backing store). ZFS doesn't
need to do this - it simply writes the new data to a
new
If you want to copy your filesystems (or snapshots)
to other disks, you
can use 'zfs send' to send them to a different pool
(which may even be
on a different machine!).
Oh no ! It means copy the whole filesystem. The target here is definitively to
snapshot the filesystem and them backup
On September 13, 2006 6:09:50 AM -0700 Mathias F
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
a product which is *not* currently multi-host-aware to
behave in the
same safe manner as one which is.
That`s the point we figured out while testing it ;)
I just wanted to have our thoughts reviewed by other ZFS
just measured quickly that a 1.2Ghz sparc can do [400-500]MB/sec
of encoding (time spent in misnamed function
vdev_raidz_reconstruct) for a 3 disk raid-z group.
Strange, that seems very low.
Ah, I see. The current code loops through each buffer, either copying or XORing
it into the parity.
With ZFS however the in-between cache is obsolete, as individual disk caches
can be used directly. I also openly question whether even the dedicated RAID
HW is faster than the newest CPUs in modern servers.
Individual disk caches are typically in the 8-16 MB range; for 15 disks, that
gives you
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 09:14:36AM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
Why again shouldn't zfs have a hostid written into the pool, to prevent
import if the hostid doesn't match?
See:
6282725 hostname/hostid should be stored in the label
Keep in mind that this is not a complete clustering solution -
eric kustarz wrote:
I want per pool, per dataset, and per file - where all are done by the
filesystem (ZFS), not the application. I was talking about a further
enhancement to copies than what Matt is currently proposing - per
file copies, but its more work (one thing being we don't have
On Sep 12, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Celso wrote:On 12/09/06, Celso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the great things about zfs, is that it protects not just against mechanical failure, butagainst silent data corruption. Having this availableto laptop owners seems to me to be important tomaking zfs even
I filed this RFE earlier, since there is no way for non sun personel
to see this RFE for a while I am posting it here, and asking for
feedback from the community.
[Fwd: CR 6470231 Created P5 opensolaris/triage-queue Add an inuse
check that is inforced even if import -f is used.] Inbox
Assign a
On September 13, 2006 9:32:50 AM -0700 Eric Schrock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 09:14:36AM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
Why again shouldn't zfs have a hostid written into the pool, to prevent
import if the hostid doesn't match?
See:
6282725 hostname/hostid should be
Torrey McMahon wrote:
eric kustarz wrote:
I want per pool, per dataset, and per file - where all are done by the
filesystem (ZFS), not the application. I was talking about a further
enhancement to copies than what Matt is currently proposing - per
file copies, but its more work (one thing
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Nicolas Dorfsman wrote:
Hi,
There's something really bizarre in ZFS snaphot specs : Uses no
separate backing store. .
Hum...if I want to mutualize one physical volume somewhere in my SAN
as THE snaphots backing-store...it becomes impossible to do !
Really bad.
Is there
Bart Smaalders wrote:
Torrey McMahon wrote:
eric kustarz wrote:
I want per pool, per dataset, and per file - where all are done by
the filesystem (ZFS), not the application. I was talking about a
further enhancement to copies than what Matt is currently
proposing - per file copies, but
On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Eric Schrock wrote:
Storing the hostid as a last-ditch check for administrative error is a
reasonable RFE - just one that we haven't yet gotten around to.
Claiming that it will solve the clustering problem oversimplifies the
problem and will lead to people who
On September 13, 2006 1:28:47 PM -0400 Dale Ghent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Eric Schrock wrote:
Storing the hostid as a last-ditch check for administrative error is a
reasonable RFE - just one that we haven't yet gotten around to.
Claiming that it will solve the
Hi zfs-discuss,I was running Solaris 11, b42 on x86, and I
tried upgrading to b44. I didn't have space on the root for
live_upgrade, so I booted from disc to upgrade, but it failed on every
attempt, so I ended up blowing away / and doing a clean b44 install.
Now the zpool that was attached to that
Frank Cusack wrote:
Sounds cool! Better than depending on an out-of-band heartbeat.
I disagree it sounds really really bad. If you want a high availability
cluster you really need a faster interconnect than spinning rust which
is probably the slowest interface we have now!
--
Darren J
Can you send the output of 'zdb -l /dev/dsk/c2t0d0s0' ? So you do the
'zpool import -f' and all is well, but then when you reboot, it doesn't
show up, and you must import it again? Can you send the output of 'zdb
-C' both before and after you do the import?
Thanks,
- Eric
On Wed, Sep 13,
On 9/12/06, James C. McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Little wrote:
So, people here recommended the Marvell cards, and one even provided a
link to acquire them for SATA jbod support. Well, this is what the
latest bits (B47) say:
Sep 12 13:51:54 vram marvell88sx: [ID 679681
You want:
6421959 want zfs send to preserve properties ('zfs send -p')
Which Matt is currently working on.
- Eric
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 02:04:32AM +0800, Darren Reed wrote:
Using Solaris 10, Update 2 (b9a)
I've just used zfs send | zfs receive to move some filesystems
from one disk to
On Sep 13, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
That might be acceptable in some environments but that is going to
cause disks to spin up. That will be very unacceptable in a
laptop and maybe even in some energy conscious data centres.
Introduce an option to 'zpool create'? Come to
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 06:37:25PM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Dale Ghent wrote:
On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Eric Schrock wrote:
Storing the hostid as a last-ditch check for administrative error is a
reasonable RFE - just one that we haven't yet gotten around to.
Claiming that it will
I do the 'zpool import -f moonside', and all is well until I reboot, at which point I must zpool import -f again.Below is zdb -l /dev/dsk/c2t0d0s0's output:LABEL 0
version=3 name='moonside' state=0 txg=1644418
On 9/13/06, Eric Schrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are several problems I can see:
- This is what the original '-f' flag is for. I think a better approach
is to expand the default message of 'zpool import' with more
information, such as which was the last host to access the pool and
I think there are at least two separate issues here.
The first is that ZFS doesn't support multiple hosts accessing the same pool.
That's simply a matter of telling people. UFS doesn't support multiple hosts,
but it doesn't have any special features to prevent administrators from
*trying* it.
If I'm reading the source correctly, for the $60xx boards, the only supported
revision is $09. Yours is $07, which presumably has some errata with no
workaround, and which the Solaris driver refuses to support. Hope you can
return it ... ?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
A quick peek at the Linux source shows a small workaround in place for the 07
revision...maybe if you file a bug against Solaris to support this revision it
might be possible to get it added, at least if that's the only issue.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Is this true for single-sector, vs. single-ZFS-block, errors? (Yes, it's
pathological and probably nobody really cares.) I didn't see anything in the
code which falls back on single-sector reads. (It's slightly annoying that the
interface to the block device drivers loses the SCSI error
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 02:29:55PM -0500, James Dickens wrote:
this would not be the first time that Solaris overrided an administive
command, because its just not safe or sane to do so. For example.
rm -rf /
As I've repeated before, and will continue to repeat, it's not actually
possible
On 9/13/06, Eric Schrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 02:29:55PM -0500, James Dickens wrote:
this would not be the first time that Solaris overrided an administive
command, because its just not safe or sane to do so. For example.
rm -rf /
As I've repeated before, and
Jill Manfield wrote:
My customer is running java on a ZFS file system. His platform is Soalris 10
x86 SF X4200. When he enabled ZFS his memory of 18 gigs drops to 2 gigs rather
quickly. I had him do a # ps -e -o pid,vsz,comm | sort -n +1 and it came back:
The culprit application you see
Nicolas Dorfsman wrote:
We need to think ZFS as ZFS, and not as a new filesystem ! I mean,
the whole concept is different.
Agreed.
So. What could be the best architecture ?
What is the problem?
With UFS, I used to have separate metadevices/LUNs for each
application. With ZFS, I thought
One more piece of information. I was able to ascertain the slowdown happens
only when ZFS is used heavily; meaning lots of inflight I/O. This morning when
the system was quiet my writes to the /u099 filesystem was excellent and it has
gone south like I reported earlier.
I am currently
Including performance considerations ?
For instance, if I have two Oracle Databases with two I/O profiles (TP versus
Batch)...what would be the best :
1) Two pools, each one on two LUNs. Each LUN distributed on n trays.
2) One pool on one LUN. This LUN distributed on 2 x n trays.
3) One
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
Nicolas Dorfsman wrote:
We need to think ZFS as ZFS, and not as a new filesystem ! I mean,
the whole concept is different.
Agreed.
So. What could be the best architecture ?
What is the problem?
With UFS, I used to have separate metadevices/LUNs for each
OK, this may seem like a stupid question (and we all know that there are
such things...)
I'm considering sharing a disk array (something like a 3510FC) between
two different systems, a SPARC and an Opteron.
Will ZFS transparently work to import/export pools between the two
systems? That is, can
If you're using EFI labels, yes (VTOC labels are not endian neutral).
ZFS will automatically convert endianness from the on-disk format, and
new data will be written using the native endianness, so data will be
gradually be rewritten to avoid the byteswap overhead.
- Eric
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at
Erik Trimble wrote:
OK, this may seem like a stupid question (and we all know that there are
such things...)
I'm considering sharing a disk array (something like a 3510FC) between
two different systems, a SPARC and an Opteron.
Will ZFS transparently work to import/export pools between the two
Erik Trimble wrote:
OK, this may seem like a stupid question (and we all know that there are
such things...)
I'm considering sharing a disk array (something like a 3510FC) between
two different systems, a SPARC and an Opteron.
Will ZFS transparently work to import/export pools between the two
On 9/13/06, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, this may seem like a stupid question (and we all know that there are
such things...)
I'm considering sharing a disk array (something like a 3510FC) between
two different systems, a SPARC and an Opteron.
Will ZFS transparently work to
Frank Cusack wrote:
...[snip James McPherson's objections to PMC]
I understand the objection to mickey mouse configurations, but I don't
understand the objection to (what I consider) simply improving safety.
...
And why should failover be limited to SC? Why shouldn't VCS be able to
play? Why
Anton B. Rang schrieb:
The hostid solution that VxVM uses would catch this second problem,
because when A came up after its reboot, it would find that -- even
though it had created the pool -- it was not the last machine to access
it, and could refuse to automatically mount it. If the
On September 14, 2006 1:25:01 AM +0200 Daniel Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to clear some things up. The OP who started the whole discussion would
have had the same
problems with VxVM as he has now with ZFS. If you force an import of a disk
group on one host
while it is still active on
On September 13, 2006 4:33:31 PM -0700 Frank Cusack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'd typically have a dedicated link for heartbeat, what if that cable
gets yanked or that NIC port dies. The backup system could avoid mounting
the pool if zfs had its own heartbeat. What if the cluster software
has
I did a non-scientific benchmark against ASM and ZFS. Just look for my posts
and you'll see it. To summarize it was a statistical tie for simple loads of
around 2GB of data and we've chosen to stick with ASM for a variety of reasons
not the least of which is its ability to rebalance when disks
Dale Ghent wrote:
James C. McPherson wrote:
As I understand things, SunCluster 3.2 is expected to have support
for HA-ZFS
and until that version is released you will not be running in a
supported
configuration and so any errors you encounter are *your fault
alone*.
Still, after reading
On September 13, 2006 7:07:40 PM -0700 Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dale Ghent wrote:
James C. McPherson wrote:
As I understand things, SunCluster 3.2 is expected to have support
for HA-ZFS
and until that version is released you will not be running in a
supported
configuration
Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
I did a non-scientific benchmark against ASM and ZFS. Just look for my posts
and you'll see it. To summarize it was a statistical tie for simple loads of
around 2GB of data and we've chosen to stick with ASM for a variety of reasons
not the least of which is its
On 9/13/06, Matthew Ahrens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, if you want *everything* in your pool to be mirrored, there is no
real need for this feature (you could argue that setting up the pool
would be easier if you didn't have to slice up the disk though).
Not necessarily. Implementing this
On Sep 13, 2006, at 10:52, Scott Howard wrote:
It's not at all bizarre once you understand how ZFS works. I'd suggest
reading through some of the documentation available at
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/ , in paricular the
Slides available there.
The presentation that
Yeah. I got the message from a few others, and we are hoping to
return/buy the newer one. I've sort of surprised by the limited set of
SATA RAID or JBOD cards that one can actually use. Even the one's
linked to on this list sometimes aren't supported :). I need to get up
and running like
Hi folks,
I'm in the annoying position of having to replace my rootdisk
(since it's a [EMAIL PROTECTED]@$! maxtor and dying). I'm currently running
with zfsroot after following Tabriz' and TimF's procedure to
enable that. However, I'd like to know whether there's a better
way to get zfs
88 matches
Mail list logo
