Matty writes:
Are there any plans to support record sizes larger than 128k? We use
ZFS file systems for disk staging on our backup servers (compression
is a nice feature here), and we typically configure the disk staging
process to read and write large blocks (typically 1MB or so). This
The case is a Sharkoon Rebel9 (Economy edition, has no integrated fans), I
bought it from an italian online store, and I think it's commercialized in
Germany, it has 9 51/4 frontal slots
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss
Eric Schrock wrote:
Yes, this would be useful. See:
6364688 method to preserve properties when making a clone
Thanks for that pointer. I'd say it should be the default - but then
that was basically the topic of this thread :-)
The infrastructure is all there (zfs_clone() takes an nvlist
Thanks, did it come with the hardware to mount HDD's in 5.25 slots?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Hello,
in a benchmark a find to a filename (find -name foobar ) , ZFS is approx
7 times slower than an XFS filesystem (14 minutes ZFS,2 Minutes XFS).
The filesystem consists out of a huge amount of files.
I assume, that ZFS has no comparable function to the directory indexes
like XFS or the
Hello,
in a benchmark a find to a filename (find -name foobar ) , ZFS is approx
7 times slower than an XFS filesystem (14 minutes ZFS,2 Minutes XFS).
The filesystem consists out of a huge amount of files.
I assume, that ZFS has no comparable function to the directory indexes
like XFS or the
Hello,
in a different benchmark run on the same system, the gfind took 15
minutes whereas the standarf find took 18 minutes. With find and
noatime=off the benchmark took 14 minutes. But even this is slow
compared to 2-3 minutes of the xfs system.
Regards
Joerg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Joerg Moellenkamp wrote:
Hello,
in a different benchmark run on the same system, the gfind took 15
minutes whereas the standarf find took 18 minutes. With find and
noatime=off the benchmark took 14 minutes. But even this is slow
compared to 2-3 minutes of the xfs system.
just asking the
Joerg Moellenkamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
in a different benchmark run on the same system, the gfind took 15
minutes whereas the standarf find took 18 minutes. With find and
noatime=off the benchmark took 14 minutes. But even this is slow
compared to 2-3 minutes of the xfs
On 9/4/07, Gino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yesterday we had a drive failure on a fc-al jbod with 14 drives.
Suddenly the zpool using that jbod stopped to respond to I/O requests
and we get tons of the following messages on /var/adm/messages:
snip
cfgadm -al or devfsadm -C didn't solve the
I'm now using the CM Stacker 810 for my file server and I love it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1689093
It comes with one 4-in-3 drive cage and has room for 2 more (3 if you
remove the front I/O panel). The drive cages are excellent - mounted
with rubber washers to
Is it possible to force ZFS to nicely re-organize data inside a zpool
after a new root level vdev has been introduced?
e.g. Take a pool with 1 vdev consisting of a 2 disk mirror. Populate some
arbitrary files using about 50% of the capacity. Then add another 2
mirrored disks to the pool.
It
Hi All,
I'm a total newbie to solaris so apologies if the answer is obvious, but google
is not my friend today.
I'm installing opensolaris on an intel based machine with an IDE drive for
booting and 2 SATA disks that I plan to use for a ZFS based NAS. I manged to
get opensolaris installed,
On 9/5/07, Peter Bridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1x Promise sata ii 150 TX4
That controller doesn't work with Solaris. Marvell 88sx6081s (like
the Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8), LSI Logic controllers, and Sil3124s
(from a variety of manufacturers) are. AHCI controllers like the
Intel ICH series
http://news.com.com/NetApp+files+patent+suit+against+Sun/2100-1014_3-6206194.html
I'm curious how many of those patent filings cover technologies that
they carried over from Auspex.
While it is legal for them to do so, it is a bit shady to inherit
technology (two paths; employees departing
http://www.netapp.com/go/ipsuit/spider-complaint.pdf
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
About 2 years ago I was able to get a little closer to the patent
litigation process,
by way of giving a deposition in litigation that was filed against Sun
and Apple
(and has been settled).
Apparently, there's an entire sub-economy built on patent litigation
among the
technology players.
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:43:38PM -0500, Rob Windsor wrote:
(No, I'm not defending Sun in it's apparent patent-growling, either, it
all sucks IMO.)
In contrast to the positioning by NetApp, Sun didn't start the patent
fight. It was started by StorageTek, well prior to Sun's acquisition of
Paul Kraus wrote:
On 9/4/07, Gino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yesterday we had a drive failure on a fc-al jbod with 14 drives.
Suddenly the zpool using that jbod stopped to respond to I/O requests
and we get tons of the following messages on /var/adm/messages:
snip
cfgadm -al or devfsadm
Solaris wrote:
Is it possible to force ZFS to nicely re-organize data inside a zpool
after a new root level vdev has been introduced?
Currently, ZFS will not reorganize the existing data for such cases.
You can force this to occur by copying the data and removing the old,
but that seems like a
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:43:38PM -0500, Rob Windsor wrote:
http://news.com.com/NetApp+files+patent+suit+against+Sun/2100-1014_3-6206194.html
I'm curious how many of those patent filings cover technologies that
they carried over from Auspex.
While it is legal for them to do so, it is a
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:43:38PM -0500, Rob Windsor wrote:
http://news.com.com/NetApp+files+patent+suit+against+Sun/2100-1014_3-6206194.html
I'm curious how many of those patent filings cover technologies that
they carried over from Auspex.
On 9/5/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I wrote before, my wofs (designed and implemented 1989-1990 for SunOS 4.0,
published May 23th 1991) is copy on write based, does not need fsck and always
offers a stable view on the media because it is COW.
Side question:
If COW is such
mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/5/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I wrote before, my wofs (designed and implemented 1989-1990 for SunOS
4.0,
published May 23th 1991) is copy on write based, does not need fsck and
always
offers a stable view on the media because it
mike wrote:
On 9/5/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I wrote before, my wofs (designed and implemented 1989-1990 for SunOS 4.0,
published May 23th 1991) is copy on write based, does not need fsck and
always
offers a stable view on the media because it is COW.
Side question:
Hello,
Not sure if anyone at Sun can comment on this, but I thought it might
be of interest to the list:
This morning, NetApp filed an IP (intellectual property) lawsuit
against Sun. It has two parts. The first is a “declaratory
judgment”, asking the court to decide whether we infringe
James C. McPherson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If COW is such an old concept, why haven't there been many filesystems
that have become popular that use it? ZFS, BTRFS (I think) and maybe
WAFL? At least that I know of. It seems like an excellent guarantee of
disk commitment, yet we're all
Joerg Schilling wrote:
The best documented one is the inverted meta data tree that allows wofs to
write
only one new generation node for one modified file while ZFS needs to also
write new
nodes for all directories above the file including the root directory in the
fs.
I believe you are
Atul Vidwansa wrote:
ZFS Experts,
Is it possible to use DMU as general purpose transaction engine? More
specifically, in following order:
1. Create transaction:
tx = dmu_tx_create(os);
error = dmu_tx_assign(tx, TXG_WAIT)
2. Decide what to modify(say create new object):
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 14:26 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
AFAIK, nobody has characterized resilvering, though this is about the 4th
time this week someone has brought the topic up. Has anyone done work here
that we don't know about? If so, please speak up :-)
I haven't been conducting
Hello,
I think I have gained sufficient fool status for testing the
fool-proof-ness of zfs. I have a cluster of T1000 servers running
Solaris 10 and two x4100's running an OpenSolaris dist (Nexenta) which
is at b68. Each T1000 hosts several zones each of which has its own
zpool associated
31 matches
Mail list logo
