Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Well, I tried. It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did not want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this thread to speak of the technical difficulties; but due to my recent conclusions, I must. I brought up the notion of a Linux port on the Linux-kernel mailing list. Whilst the response is very high in number of posts, there has been a general understanding that the non-compatibility of the CDDL and GPL licenses is the show-stopper. Also agreed is that Linux can not change from GPL. So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? The reader may feel free to respond to me personally and in confidence, knowing that I shall mot divulge the contents our correspondence. If the general consensus is that I need to consult a lawyer, I will say outright that I have no intentions of doing so if I must pay, but gladly will if this service can be provided for free. Cheers. -- —A watched bread-crumb never boils. —My hover-craft is full of eels. —[...]and that's the he and the she of it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? -- Just me, Wire ... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I tried. It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did not want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this thread to speak of the technical difficulties; but due to my recent conclusions, I must. You know that this is not the way things work on Linux? Is I noted before, the bigger problem would be the different VFS interface in Linux. Linux people in general do not plan things but just discuss things that are already ready to use. I brought up the notion of a Linux port on the Linux-kernel mailing list. Whilst the response is very high in number of posts, there has been a general understanding that the non-compatibility of the CDDL and GPL licenses is the show-stopper. Also agreed is that Linux can not change from GPL. So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? The reader may feel free to respond to me personally and in confidence, knowing that I shall mot divulge the contents our correspondence. The problem with such discussions is not that the code combination would be impossible but that the people from Linux discuss on a wrong base that makes the combination impossible. ZFS is not part of the Linux Kernel. Only if you declare ZFS a part of Linux, you will observe the license conflict. The GPL is talking about works and there is no problem to use GPL code together with code under other licenses as long as this is mere aggregation (like creating a driver for Linux) instead of creating a derived work. It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. On the flip side, why shouldn't it be? -- —A watched bread-crumb never boils. —My hover-craft is full of eels. —[...]and that's the he and the she of it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver. Using ZFS with Linux would be mere aggregation (see GPL text). Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. On the flip side, why shouldn't it be? Do you want to spam *EVERY* open source project asking to change the license to GPL so that you can use it with Linux?? How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Rayson -- —A watched bread-crumb never boils. —My hover-craft is full of eels. —[...]and that's the he and the she of it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
As Joerg noted (and I've looked at fairly extensively), the VFS layer in Linux is radically different than either FreeBSD or Solaris, and ZFS would require extensive reworking before being implemented - the port is nowhere near as simple as the one from Solaris to FreeBSD. Also, note that kernel modules are considered part of the kernel and covered by the derivative portion of the GPL, at least in the eyes of most Linux folks. ATI and nVidia get around this issue by producing a GPL'd kernel module which provides stable ABI/API across many different linux releases, then have their relevant drivers call this. Theoretically, this might be possible with ZFS, but given that ZFS may need deep interfacing with the VFS layers, I can't see how a clean separation between a GPL'd ZFS kernel module (which you'd have to write from scratch) and a CDDL'd driver can be made. It simply isn't going to happen, any more than you're going to be able to take the GPL'd reiserFS Linux driver and port it directly into FreeBSD or Solaris. And, frankly, I can think of several very good reasons why Sun would NOT want to release a ZFS under the GPL - specifically, Linux is a direct competitor to Solaris, and it does not benefit Sun (or, ultimately, everyone) for all of Solaris' features to be directly incorporated into Linux. Application-level compatibility between Linux and Solaris is desirable for everyone, but there are still significant advantages to OS-level feature differentiation. I do not speak for Sun on this matter, nor would I presume that my opinion is held by others here; it's just my opinion. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17/04/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I tried. It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did not want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this thread to speak of the technical difficulties; but due to my recent conclusions, I must. You know that this is not the way things work on Linux? If you refer to the licensing, yes. Coding-wise, I have no idea exept to say that I would be VERY surprised if ZFS can not be ported to Linux, especially since there already exists the FUSE project. Is I noted before, the bigger problem would be the different VFS interface in Linux. Linux people in general do not plan things but just discuss things that are already ready to use. Excellent! There is talk of the (some-what) technical issues related to a port. Carry on! I brought up the notion of a Linux port on the Linux-kernel mailing list. Whilst the response is very high in number of posts, there has been a general understanding that the non-compatibility of the CDDL and GPL licenses is the show-stopper. Also agreed is that Linux can not change from GPL. So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? The reader may feel free to respond to me personally and in confidence, knowing that I shall mot divulge the contents our correspondence. The problem with such discussions is not that the code combination would be impossible but that the people from Linux discuss on a wrong base that makes the combination impossible. ZFS is not part of the Linux Kernel. Only if you declare ZFS a part of Linux, you will observe the license conflict. And, as brought up elsewhere, ZFS would have to be a part of the Kernel -- or else some persons would have to employ Herculean attention to make sure ZFS was upgraded with the kernel. if some one were willing to do this, a swift resolution MAY ba possible. The GPL is talking about works and there is no problem to use GPL code together with code under other licenses as long as this is mere aggregation (like creating a driver for Linux) instead of creating a derived work. It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. Indeed? What are these reasons? I want to have every thing in the open. -- —A watched bread-crumb never boils. —My hover-craft is full of eels. —[...]and that's the he and the she of it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17/04/07, Rayson Ho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. On the flip side, why shouldn't it be? Do you want to spam *EVERY* open source project asking to change the license to GPL so that you can use it with Linux?? Not at all! I'm very serious and even more curious. Nor am I asking you to change licenses. I, as always, wish only to satisfy my curiosity. How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-) -- —A watched bread-crumb never boils. —My hover-craft is full of eels. —[...]and that's the he and the she of it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Joerg Schilling wrote: David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver. Using ZFS with Linux would be mere aggregation (see GPL text). Jörg No, the general consensus amongst Linux folks is that kernel modules calling any kernel code are considered part of the Linux kernel; this is still up for legal debate, of course, but this kind of very dark grey area is something that Sun's lawyers hate. Which means that having a CDDL'd kernel driver is going to turn them sickly green, because of the _very_ unknown legality of it. This issue is exactly why ATI/nVidia have their own GPL'd kernel modules, but a proprietary driver. As I mentioned before, ZFS almost certainly needs Linux VFS hooks, which are _definitely_ going to be considered GPL'd code, and thus, ZFS would be required to be GPL-compatible. About the best I can suggest is that you look at the ZFS code and see where it requires VFS access, and then write a kernel module which exports a specific API to the kernel VFS layer, and port the ZFS code to use that new API. Go look at the aforementioned nVidia drivers for an example of how they do it. Or, maybe even look at the OSS (Open Sound System) code for how to provide this kind of meta-API. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-) While ZFS is nice, I don't think it is a must for most desktop users. For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world population) people who just use the computers to browse the web, check emails, do word processing, etc... don't care. Even if they do care, I don't think those who do not backup their drive can really understand how to use ZFS. And, freeing the office file format is way more important than to port ZFS to Linux. I believe Sun has other important things to work on than to relicense Solaris to GPL. Rayson -- —A watched bread-crumb never boils. —My hover-craft is full of eels. —[...]and that's the he and the she of it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] storage type for ZFS
The paragraph below is from ZFS admin guide Traditional Volume Management As described in “ZFS Pooled Storage” on page 18, ZFS eliminates the need for a separate volume manager. ZFS operates on raw devices, so it is possible to create a storage pool comprised of logical volumes, either software or hardware. This configuration is not recommended, as ZFS works best when it uses raw physical devices. Using logical volumes might sacrifice performance, reliability, or both, and should be avoided Does this mean EMC/Hitachi and other SAN provisioned storage(RAID LUN) is not suitable storage for ZFS? Please clarify thanks This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you refer to the licensing, yes. Coding-wise, I have no idea exept to say that I would be VERY surprised if ZFS can not be ported to Linux, especially since there already exists the FUSE project. So if you are interested in this project, I would encourage you to just start with the code... ZFS is not part of the Linux Kernel. Only if you declare ZFS a part of Linux, you will observe the license conflict. And, as brought up elsewhere, ZFS would have to be a part of the Kernel -- or else some persons would have to employ Herculean attention to make sure ZFS was upgraded with the kernel. if some one were willing to do this, a swift resolution MAY ba possible. The fact that someone may put the ZFS sources in the Linux source tree does not make it a part of that software And it seems that you missunderstand the way the Linux kernel is developed. If _you_ started a ZFS project for Linux, _you_ would need to maintain it too or otherwise it would not be kept up to date. Note that it is a well known fact that a lot of the non-mainstream parts of the linux kernel sources do not work although they _are_ part of the linux kernel source tree. Creating a port does not mean that you may forget about it once you believe that you are ready. The GPL is talking about works and there is no problem to use GPL code together with code under other licenses as long as this is mere aggregation (like creating a driver for Linux) instead of creating a derived work. It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. Indeed? What are these reasons? I want to have every thing in the open. This is something you would need to ask the Linux kernel folks Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver. Using ZFS with Linux would be mere aggregation (see GPL text). Jörg No, the general consensus amongst Linux folks is that kernel modules calling any kernel code are considered part of the Linux kernel; this is still up for legal debate, of course, but this kind of very dark grey area is something that Sun's lawyers hate. Which means that having a CDDL'd kernel driver is going to turn them sickly green, because of the _very_ unknown legality of it. Well, a German author definitely may do this as the German Copuyright law allows to use a minor part of other peoples work without asking in case that there is a note on this fact. This is called: Wissenschaftliches Kleinzitat. I believe that the US Copyright law has a similar exception (called fair use) but you need to ask the author. This issue is exactly why ATI/nVidia have their own GPL'd kernel modules, but a proprietary driver. As I mentioned before, ZFS almost certainly needs Linux VFS hooks, which are _definitely_ going to be considered GPL'd code, and thus, ZFS would be required to be GPL-compatible. About the best I can suggest is that you look at the ZFS code and see where it requires VFS access, and then write a kernel module which exports a specific API to the kernel VFS layer, and port the ZFS code to use that new API. Go look at the aforementioned nVidia drivers for an example of how they do it. Or, maybe even look at the OSS (Open Sound System) code for how to provide this kind of meta-API. With knowledge on the fastly changing Linux kernel interfaces, this seems to be the best way to go anyway :-) Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files
Hi, regarding ZFS compression method: what happens when a compressed file is udpated/appended? Is it ALL un-compressed first, updated/appended and then re-compressed? Or only the affected blocks are uncompressed and then recompressed? And, what happens exactly when a portion of a compressed file is to be read: the whole file or only a portion is read and uncompressed? Thank you in advance Leonardo ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17/04/07, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, frankly, I can think of several very good reasons why Sun would NOT want to release a ZFS under the GPL Not to mention the knock-on effects of those already using ZFS (apple, BSD) who would be adversely affected by a GPL license. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] adding a disk
Hello tester, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:46:52 AM, you wrote: t Hi, t I would like to know what changes are made to the storage t disk/lun/slice when it is added to a zfs pool? I am trying to t relate to VxVM where the VTOC is changed. In otherwords, is there t way to know if storage is part of ZFS just by examing any structure of the storage? If you add a slice then zfs won't change vtoc. However if you add an entire disk (in form of cXtYdZ - without a slice) then zfs will put en EFI label on the disk. By default zfs tools will first check if given slice/disk is used in a system (mounted ufs file systems, part of other pool, etc.). -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Hello Rayson, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote: RH On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-) RH While ZFS is nice, I don't think it is a must for most desktop users. RH For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world RH population) people who just use the computers to browse the web, check RH emails, do word processing, etc... don't care. Even if they do care, I RH don't think those who do not backup their drive can really understand RH how to use ZFS. I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop, mostly for its built-in reliability, free snapshots, built-in compression and cryptography (soon) and easy to use. ps. few days ago I encountered my first checksum error on my desktop system on a submirror (two sata drives in a zfs mirror). Thanks to zfs it won't be a problem and it's already repaired. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. I certainly don't understand why they ignore it. How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007 without ZFS dominating the agenda?? http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/ That long fscks should be a hot topic, given the state of the art, is just bizarre. --Toby Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http:// schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/ pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Rayson, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote: RH On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-) RH While ZFS is nice, I don't think it is a must for most desktop users. RH For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world RH population) people who just use the computers to browse the web, check RH emails, do word processing, etc... don't care. Even if they do care, I RH don't think those who do not backup their drive can really understand RH how to use ZFS. I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop, Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you. I would agree as well. With the proper UI (which I hope Apple has or will eventually have -- waiting to get Leopard! as I have not yet renewed my paid developer program at Apple) ZFS is a killer on the desktop, especially on OS X where everything of importance has to be or likes to live on the boot device (I understand that OS X does not yet support booting on ZFS but someday it will), but on any consumer class desktop it is killer because it removes the need to worry about disks from the end user. You need more space, buy a new disk or two and then just add them into the pool of storage. What's interesting about its integration in OS X - and OS X in general - is it diffuses hitherto server grade technology (UNIX, inter alia) all the way down to everybody's grandmother's non- technical desktop/MacBook. Steve definitely proved his point (starting with NeXT, of course); Linux and Solaris will inevitably arrive there too. To M's detriment :-) Yep Chad --Toby mostly for its built-in reliability, free snapshots, built-in compression and cryptography (soon) and easy to use. ps. few days ago I encountered my first checksum error on my desktop system on a submirror (two sata drives in a zfs mirror). Thanks to zfs it won't be a problem and it's already repaired. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs question as to sizes
Eric Schrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/16/2007 05:29:05 PM: On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 05:13:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why it was considered a valid data column in its current state is anyone's guess. This column is precise and valid. It represents the amount of space uniquely referenced by the snapshot, and therefore the amount of space that would be freed were it to be deleted. The OP's question and my response should indicate that while this number may be precise and valid, it is not useful for most administrators workflow. The shared space between snapshots, besides being difficult to calculate, is nearly impossible to enumerate in anything beyond the most trivial setups. For example, with just snapshots 'a b c d e', you can have space shared by the following combinations: a b a b c a b c d a b c d e b c b c d b c d e c d c d e d e It is complex, I will give you that. Most of the accounting needed is already done in dsl's born and dead code. Not to mention the space shared with the active filesystem. With dozens of snapshots, you're talking about hundreds or thousands of combinations. It's certainly possible to calculate the space used various snapshot intersections, but presenting it is another matter. Perhaps you could describe how you would like this information to be presented in zfs(1M). Hello Eric, I am not looking for a gigantic gantt chart. Displaying the data in one way that is useful across the board is a nontrivial task -- but coming up with 3 or 4 ways to dive into the data from different perspectives may cover all but the most edge cases. It is not acceptable to ask admins to delete and find out blindly -- we like to be able to plan before we act. This is unacceptable when you get to anything beyond the most trivial of setups. In its current form, we can have more hidden allocated storage than reported usage is never a pleasant place to be in. I consider that broke. How is an administrator to know snap 46 - 48 are taking up 4 tb when you have 2000+ snaps and looking to recover freespace -- zfs list seems to imply we should get along with the 1.2m and 300m listed as used for those two snaps? I suggest that the default zfs list should show the space (all of the space) accounted in the last snapshot before the dead list for the block. You treat snapshots as a timeline in code, while discussing the functionality and in usage -- do so in default reporting too. This simple changes gives admins the ability to see large growth spikes/deletes inline. This shows what space would be freed when deleting snaps from the oldest one to X. when a snap is killed off in the middle while you are inspecting the born dead blocks adjust the usage counter to the right or off the books. Change the unique listing to be zfs list -o snapunique add other flags such as snapborn and snapdead to show the admin the flow of data when doing zfs list -o snapunique,snapborn,snapdead. snapborn and dead should show the usage born and marked dead on each unique snapshot. third, zfs listsnap list of snapshot names to show how much unique space is reserved and would be freed by deleting the snapshots in the list. The data is all there in the born and dead lists, but admins are stuck with a view that completely hides all space reservations that are used across two or more snaps. Put out an RFC on this, I am sure there are many ideas floating around about how the utilization on snaps should or could be reported. I think most everyone understands that doing some forms of reporting are non-trivial. Where we are at now is hiding too much data and revealing data that is a poor/invalid picture of the true state. kindest regards, -Wade ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: The killer feature for me is checksumming and self-healing. Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for desktop use (who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop machine?!) doesn't get it. (A close 2nd for me personally is the ease of creating mirrors, but granted that's on my servers rather than my desktop.) -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Drobo
Here's another product which has removed the hassle out of disk management: http://www.drobo.com/products_demo.aspx I wonder if they (Data Robotics) will make the Drobo work with ZFS once Leopard is out (since it supports HFS+)? ---8--- Data Robotics has just introduced Drobo, the world’s first storage robot. Drobo is a direct attached storage array that provides fully automated storage that is very easy to use. Drobo attaches via USB 2.0, with no host software required. Drobo combines up to 4 drives (SATA I or III) into a pool of protected storage (i.e. with the protection levels of RAID 5 but with none of the hassles of RAID). Drobo’s capacity can be upgraded on the fly (hot-swappable) with drives of different capacities and speeds, and from different manufacturers. There is a video demonstration of Drobo on www.drobo.com and there are multiple postings about Drobo on the web, including: http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/09/drobo-the-worlds-first-storage-robot/ ---8--- cheers, /Martin -- Martin Englund, Java Security Engineer, Java SE, Sun Microsystems Inc. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Time Zone: GMT+2 PGP: 1024D/AA514677 The question is not if you are paranoid, it is if you are paranoid enough. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: ... I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop, Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you. I would agree as well. With the proper UI (which I hope Apple has or will eventually have -- waiting to get Leopard! Full disclosure: I don't think anyone outside Apple yet knows for SURE if it's going to be in Leopard (or even a future release). Found this sceptical article today - or is it out of date? http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/8/15/4995 as I have not yet renewed my paid developer program at Apple) ZFS is a killer on the desktop, especially on OS X where everything of importance has to be or likes to live on the boot device (I understand that OS X does not yet support booting on ZFS but someday it will), but on any consumer class desktop it is killer because it removes the need to worry about disks from the end user. You need more space, buy a new disk or two and then just add them into the pool of storage. The killer feature for me is checksumming and self-healing. --Toby ... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: ... I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop, Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you. I would agree as well. With the proper UI (which I hope Apple has or will eventually have -- waiting to get Leopard! Full disclosure: I don't think anyone outside Apple yet knows for SURE if it's going to be in Leopard (or even a future release). Found this sceptical article today - or is it out of date? http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/8/15/4995 I don't have any insider or NDA knowledge (as I said, I have not yet re-upped my paid developer status and have not had any of the leopard seeds), but there have been screenshots from Leopard seeds posted that show ZFS volume creation options etc in dialog boxes. Again, who knows if it will actually ship with that feature. But it has been shipped in seeds as far as I know. Siracusa's column is old. Chad ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
On 4/17/07, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for desktop use (who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop machine?!) doesn't get it. Well, for many of those who find it hard to upgrade Windows, I guess you will have a hard time teaching them how to use ZFS. Rayson (A close 2nd for me personally is the ease of creating mirrors, but granted that's on my servers rather than my desktop.) -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Testing of UFS, VxFS and ZFS
filebench for example On 4/17/07, Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tony Galway wrote: I had previously undertaken a benchmark that pits out of box performance of UFS via SVM, VxFS and ZFS but was waylaid due to some outstanding availability issues in ZFS. These have been taken care of, and I am once again undertaking this challenge on behalf of my customer. The idea behind this benchmark is to show a. How ZFS might displace the current commercial volume and file system management applications being used. b. The learning curve of moving from current volume management products to ZFS. c. Performance differences across the different volume management products. VDBench is the test bed of choice as this has been accepted by the customer as a telling and accurate indicator of performance. The last time I attempted this test it had been suggested that VDBench is not appropriate to testing ZFS, I cannot see that being a problem, VDBench is a tool – if it highlights performance problems, then I would think it is a very effective tool so that we might better be able to fix those deficiencies. First, VDBench is a Sun internal and partner only tool so you might not get much response on this list. Second, VDBench is great for testing raw block i/o devices. I think a tool that does file system testing will get you better data. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
On 17-Apr-07, at 1:08 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: ... I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop, Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you. I would agree as well. With the proper UI (which I hope Apple has or will eventually have -- waiting to get Leopard! Full disclosure: I don't think anyone outside Apple yet knows for SURE if it's going to be in Leopard (or even a future release). Found this sceptical article today - or is it out of date? http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/8/15/4995 I don't have any insider or NDA knowledge (as I said, I have not yet re-upped my paid developer status and have not had any of the leopard seeds), but there have been screenshots from Leopard seeds posted that show ZFS volume creation options etc in dialog boxes. Yes, I've seen those - in fact I posted their début on this list. Knowing canny old buzzmeister Steve though, anything could happen. :) --T Again, who knows if it will actually ship with that feature. But it has been shipped in seeds as far as I know. Siracusa's column is old. Chad ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] adding a disk
tester wrote: Hi, I would like to know what changes are made to the storage disk/lun/slice when it is added to a zfs pool? I am trying to relate to VxVM where the VTOC is changed. In otherwords, is there way to know if storage is part of ZFS just by examing any structure of the storage? In addition to what Robert mentioned, ZFS places its configuration information in the on-disk format. There is no need to have a separate private region or metadb area in ZFS because it will not be used to encapsulate pre-existing slices. KISS. The ZFS on-disk format is available at the ZFS community site: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/ As part of adding ZFS and other features into Solaris, there are functions in the libdiskmgt library which can be used to determine if a disk has file systems in use. This provides additional use information over fstyp(1m). -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
On 17-Apr-07, at 1:24 PM, Rayson Ho wrote: On 4/17/07, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for desktop use (who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop machine?!) doesn't get it. Well, for many of those who find it hard to upgrade Windows, I guess you will have a hard time teaching them how to use ZFS. OS X tends to effectively elide the book larning part of using UNIX. I don't think ZFS would be any exception - they won't ship until you don't even know it's there. --Toby Rayson (A close 2nd for me personally is the ease of creating mirrors, but granted that's on my servers rather than my desktop.) -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17-Apr-07, at 10:56 AM, James C. McPherson wrote: Toby Thain wrote: It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. I certainly don't understand why they ignore it. How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007 without ZFS dominating the agenda?? http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/ That long fscks should be a hot topic, given the state of the art, is just bizarre. Reading through the topics in that article, I get a real sense of NIH syndrome. The presentation on the fsck problem in 2013 ... if you're still using a filesystem in 2013 that requires you to fsck then I reckon you deserve what you get! That's 6 years away, surely even linux fs developers can come up with something better in that time. They already did, in Reiser 3 4, which makes it even stranger. --Toby cheers, James C. McPherson -- Solaris kernel software engineer Sun Microsystems ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Hello Toby, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 3:39:39 PM, you wrote: It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. TT I certainly don't understand why they ignore it. TT How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007 TT without ZFS dominating the agenda?? TT http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/ Simply because it is Linux Storage and File Systems Workshop. You won't expects presentations on raiserfs at Open Solaris conference and definitely you won't expect it to dominate conference. And what they can do other than to ignore zfs? Right now Linux has nothing even close to zfs. Now many Linux people are just sys admins and they should be interested in zfs. The question is if suvh conferences should be mostly related to Linux when it comes to open source? I strongly belive not. It's up to our community and to Sun to engage several conferences and in a way to advocate about technologies like zfs, dtrace, etc. Even if we're talking about small, local meetings. Of course many people, especially from Linux crowd, will react defensively when they will see Open Solaris topics on their conferences, but hey - lets try to keep an open mind. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Rayson, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote: RH On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-) RH While ZFS is nice, I don't think it is a must for most desktop users. RH For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world RH population) people who just use the computers to browse the web, check RH emails, do word processing, etc... don't care. Even if they do care, I RH don't think those who do not backup their drive can really understand RH how to use ZFS. I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop, Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you. What's interesting about its integration in OS X - and OS X in general - is it diffuses hitherto server grade technology (UNIX, inter alia) all the way down to everybody's grandmother's non-technical desktop/MacBook. Steve definitely proved his point (starting with NeXT, of course); Linux and Solaris will inevitably arrive there too. To M's detriment :-) --Toby mostly for its built-in reliability, free snapshots, built-in compression and cryptography (soon) and easy to use. ps. few days ago I encountered my first checksum error on my desktop system on a submirror (two sata drives in a zfs mirror). Thanks to zfs it won't be a problem and it's already repaired. -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
this port was done in the case of QFS how come they managed to release a QFS for linux? On 4/17/07, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver. Using ZFS with Linux would be mere aggregation (see GPL text). Jörg No, the general consensus amongst Linux folks is that kernel modules calling any kernel code are considered part of the Linux kernel; this is still up for legal debate, of course, but this kind of very dark grey area is something that Sun's lawyers hate. Which means that having a CDDL'd kernel driver is going to turn them sickly green, because of the _very_ unknown legality of it. This issue is exactly why ATI/nVidia have their own GPL'd kernel modules, but a proprietary driver. As I mentioned before, ZFS almost certainly needs Linux VFS hooks, which are _definitely_ going to be considered GPL'd code, and thus, ZFS would be required to be GPL-compatible. About the best I can suggest is that you look at the ZFS code and see where it requires VFS access, and then write a kernel module which exports a specific API to the kernel VFS layer, and port the ZFS code to use that new API. Go look at the aforementioned nVidia drivers for an example of how they do it. Or, maybe even look at the OSS (Open Sound System) code for how to provide this kind of meta-API. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive question
Chris, This option will be available in the upcoming Solaris 10 release, a few months from now. We'll send out a listing of the new ZFS features around that time. Cindy Krzys wrote: Ah, ok, not a problem, do you know Cindy when next Solaris Update is going to be released by SUN? Yes, I am running U3 at this moment. Regards, Chris On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris, Looks like you're not running a Solaris release that contains the zfs receive -F option. This option is in current Solaris community release, build 48. http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-2271/6mhupg6f1?a=view#gdsup Otherwise, you'll have to wait until an upcoming Solaris 10 release. Cindy Krzys wrote: [18:19:00] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /root zfs send -i mypool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] mypool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] | zfs receive -F mypool2/[EMAIL PROTECTED] invalid option 'F' usage: receive [-vn] filesystem|volume|snapshot receive [-vn] -d filesystem For the property list, run: zfs set|get It does not seem to work unless I am doing it incorectly. Chris On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Nicholas Lee wrote: On 4/17/07, Krzys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and when I did try to run that last command I got the following error: [16:26:00] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: /root zfs send -i mypool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] mypool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] | zfs receive mypool2/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cannot receive: destination has been modified since most recent snapshot is there any way to do such replication by zfs send/receive and avoind such error message? Is there any way to force file system not to be mounted? Is there any way to make it maybe read only parition and then when its needed maybe make it live or whaverer? Check the -F option to zfs receive. This automatically rolls back the target. Nicholas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss !DSPAM:122,4623fa8a1809423226276! ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Puzzling ZFS behavior with COMPRESS option
Did you find a resoltion to this issue? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
Toby Thain wrote: It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. I certainly don't understand why they ignore it. How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007 without ZFS dominating the agenda?? http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/ That long fscks should be a hot topic, given the state of the art, is just bizarre. Reading through the topics in that article, I get a real sense of NIH syndrome. The presentation on the fsck problem in 2013 ... if you're still using a filesystem in 2013 that requires you to fsck then I reckon you deserve what you get! That's 6 years away, surely even linux fs developers can come up with something better in that time. cheers, James C. McPherson -- Solaris kernel software engineer Sun Microsystems ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 01:00:00PM -0400, Rayson Ho wrote: Apple is integrating DTrace too, and yet I don't see more than 10% of the Mac users writing D programs. But 100% of MacOS users might end up using DTrace without knowing it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
On 17-Apr-07, at 2:00 PM, Rayson Ho wrote: On 4/17/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OS X tends to effectively elide the book larning part of using UNIX. I don't think ZFS would be any exception - they won't ship until you don't even know it's there. But then, I have helped people fixing their computers by emptying the recycle bin!! There are things I'd change in OS X. But for everyman, it beats everything else, especially of course Windows. For power users too, but that's another topic. I think ZFS helps the filesystem layer become more reliable, self- tuning, and invisible... consistent with OS X's general approach, IMHO. Apple is integrating DTrace too, and yet I don't see more than 10% of the Mac users writing D programs. I don't see more than 1 in 1 doing it :-) --Toby Rayson --Toby Rayson (A close 2nd for me personally is the ease of creating mirrors, but granted that's on my servers rather than my desktop.) -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files
How can this work? With compressed data, its hard to predict its final size before compression. Because you are NOT compressing the file only compressing the blocks as they get written to disk. I guess this implies that the compression only can save integral numbers of blocks. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
Rich Teer, I have a perfect app for the masses. A Hi-Def Video/ audio server for the hi-def TV and audio setup. I would think the average person would want to have access to 1000s of DVDs / CDs within a small box versus taking up the full wall. Yes, assuming the quality was their... Extrapolating the cost of drives, this is now reality for the few but given 1.5 years this is for the masses. Wouldn't this sell enough boxes to make this the newer killer app?? Mitchell Erblich Sr Software Engineer Rich Teer wrote: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: The killer feature for me is checksumming and self-healing. Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for desktop use (who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop machine?!) doesn't get it. (A close 2nd for me personally is the ease of creating mirrors, but granted that's on my servers rather than my desktop.) -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OGB member CEO, My Online Home Inventory Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638 URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files
Hello Dan, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 9:44:45 PM, you wrote: How can this work? With compressed data, its hard to predict its final size before compression. Because you are NOT compressing the file only compressing the blocks as they get written to disk. DM I guess this implies that the compression only can save integral numbers of DM blocks. Can you clarify please? I don't understand above -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files
Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Dan, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 9:44:45 PM, you wrote: How can this work? With compressed data, its hard to predict its final size before compression. Because you are NOT compressing the file only compressing the blocks as they get written to disk. DM I guess this implies that the compression only can save integral numbers of DM blocks. Can you clarify please? I don't understand above If compression is done block-wise, then if I compress a 512-byte block to 2 bytes, I still need a 512-byte block to store it. Similarly, if I compress 1000 blocks to 999.001 blocks, I still need 1000 blocks to store them. This is not a significant problem, I'm sure, but it's worth remembering. Many tiny files probably don't benefit from compression at all, rather than only a little. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files
Hello Dan, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:59:53 PM, you wrote: DM Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Dan, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 9:44:45 PM, you wrote: How can this work? With compressed data, its hard to predict its final size before compression. Because you are NOT compressing the file only compressing the blocks as they get written to disk. DM I guess this implies that the compression only can save integral numbers of DM blocks. Can you clarify please? I don't understand above DM If compression is done block-wise, then if I compress a 512-byte block to 2 DM bytes, I still need a 512-byte block to store it. DM Similarly, if I compress 1000 blocks to 999.001 blocks, I still need 1000 DM blocks to store them. DM This is not a significant problem, I'm sure, but it's worth remembering. DM Many tiny files probably don't benefit from compression at all, rather than DM only a little. Yep, that's true. As smallest block in zfs is 512... But there's one exception - if you're creating small files (and also large one) fill with 0s then you will gain storage even if each file is less than 512B as no data block is allocated then :) -- Best regards, Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
On 18/04/07, Erblichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rich Teer, I have a perfect app for the masses. A Hi-Def Video/ audio server for the hi-def TV and audio setup. I would think the average person would want to have access to 1000s of DVDs / CDs within a small box versus taking up the full wall. This is already being done now, and most of the companies doing it are being sued like crazy :) -- Less is only more where more is no good. --Frank Lloyd Wright Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
Shawn Walker wrote: On 18/04/07, Erblichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rich Teer, I have a perfect app for the masses. A Hi-Def Video/ audio server for the hi-def TV and audio setup. I would think the average person would want to have access to 1000s of DVDs / CDs within a small box versus taking up the full wall. This is already being done now, and most of the companies doing it are being sued like crazy :) Nope, just about every Hi-Fi manufacturer out there sells a hard disk player that can load CDs. One thing that they never mention is that the systems use a single disk. ZFS would be fit a good fit in that market, if ZFS had been there when I was working in that sector, I would have been using it. Ian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS status -v and status -x are not in sync
SUNW-MSG-ID: ZFS-8000-CS, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1, SEVERITY: Major EVENT-TIME: Tue Apr 17 12:25:49 PDT 2007 PLATFORM: SUNW,Sun-Fire-880, CSN: -, HOSTNAME: twinkie SOURCE: zfs-diagnosis, REV: 1.0 EVENT-ID: ce624168-b522-e35b-d4e8-a8e4b9169ad1 DESC: A ZFS pool failed to open. Refer to http://sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-CS for more information. AUTO-RESPONSE: No automated response will occur. IMPACT: The pool data is unavailable REC-ACTION: Run 'zpool status -x' and either attach the missing device or restore from backup. twinkie# zpool status -x all pools are healthy twinkie# zpool status -v pool: tank state: FAULTED scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank UNAVAIL 0 0 0 insufficient replicas raidz2 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 corrupted data c1t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t9d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t10d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t11d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t12d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t13d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t0d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t1d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t1d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t2d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t2d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t3d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t3d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t4d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t4d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t5d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t5d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t6d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t6d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t7d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t7d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t16d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t16d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t17d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t17d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t18d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t18d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t19d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t19d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t20d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t20d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t21d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t21d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t22d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t22d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t23d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t23d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0 --I 'm current on all patches as of yesterday: SunOS twinkie 5.10 Generic_125100-04 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-880 --I'll put the rest in an attachment as this will be a long post. This message posted from opensolaris.org--This problem was with a V880 with attached storage, an A5200. The 880 is configured with 2 disk bays and the A5200 is connected via fiber to 2nd channel on the the pci-x dual host bus adapter. --I have to admit I probably, unknowingly at the time, caused my own problem, however I've now seen the zfs status out of sync on 2 different occasions. 1st time: - SUNW-MSG-ID: ZFS-8000-CS, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1, SEVERITY: Major EVENT-TIME: Mon Apr 16 15:36:14 PDT 2007 PLATFORM: SUNW,Sun-Fire-880, CSN: -, HOSTNAME: twinkie SOURCE: zfs-diagnosis, REV: 1.0 EVENT-ID: 9448ced6-4dea-c3ba-e13a-f9028f14b328 DESC: A ZFS pool failed to open. Refer to http://sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-CS for more information. AUTO-RESPONSE: No automated response will occur. IMPACT: The pool data is unavailable REC-ACTION: Run 'zpool status -x' and either attach the missing device or restore from backup. twinkie console login: root [twinkie] # bash twinkie# zpool status pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t4d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c1t5d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t9d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t10d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t11d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t12d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c2t13d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t0d0s0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t0d0s1 ONLINE 0 0 0
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. That matters to the developers of ZFS/OpenSolaris how? Also, note that we are not sure if GPL really matters in the case of porting a filesystem to Linux. As others have brought up, there are many commercial file systems/volume managers available in Linux as well. On the flip side, why shouldn't it be? Therein lies the difference in perspective. Linux folks thinks it's OpenSolaris's fault that ZFS cannot be integrated into Linux. OpenSolaris folks do not think so. If I'm your neighbour and I'm looking at expanding my house in your direction, should you move out of the way? -- Just me, Wire ... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17-Apr-07, at 10:54 PM, Wee Yeh Tan wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. That matters to the developers of ZFS/OpenSolaris how? Also, note that we are not sure if GPL really matters in the case of porting a filesystem to Linux. As others have brought up, there are many commercial file systems/volume managers available in Linux as well. On the flip side, why shouldn't it be? Therein lies the difference in perspective. Linux folks thinks it's OpenSolaris's fault that ZFS cannot be integrated into Linux. OpenSolaris folks do not think so. The OpenSolaris folks here seem to think it's Linux' fault. Impasse. But I'm sworn not to discuss this here :) --T If I'm your neighbour and I'm looking at expanding my house in your direction, should you move out of the way? -- Just me, Wire ... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Update/append of compressed files
Remember that ZFS is a copy-on-write file system. ZFS, much like UFS, uses indirect blocks to point to file contents. However, unlike UFS (which supports only 8K and 1K blocks, and 1K blocks only at the end of a file), the underlying stored data blocks can be of different sizes. An uncompressed file might look conceptually like this: File offset 0 = Disk block 10, 256 blocks File offset 128K = Disk block 100256, 256 blocks File offset 256K = Disk block 100512, 256 blocks If compression were enabled and the middle block of that file were rewritten, it might look like this: File offset 0 = Disk block 10, 256 blocks File offset 128K = Disk block 20, 64 blocks File offset 256K = Disk block 100512, 256 blocks Seeking to an offset in the file is the same in both cases: Examine the index to the file (direct indirect blocks) until you get to the right file offset, then retrieve the address of the stored block on disk. Then you can read the data; in the compressed case, after reading the data, you uncompress it into the user's buffer. Writing to the file is easy because you allocate new space each time, so it doesn't matter if the compressed size grows or shrinks from the original block. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Outdated FAQ entry
There are still some cases of corrupted pools that cause panics at boot (see some of the threads from the past few weeks), so the FAQ probably needs to stay for now. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Testing of UFS, VxFS and ZFS
Second, VDBench is great for testing raw block i/o devices. I think a tool that does file system testing will get you better data. OTOH, shouldn't a tool that measures raw device performance be reasonable to reflect Oracle performance when configured for raw devices? I don't know the current best practice for Oracle, but a lot of DBAs still use raw devices instead of files for their table spaces Anton This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Testing of UFS, VxFS and ZFS
Anton B. Rang wrote: Second, VDBench is great for testing raw block i/o devices. I think a tool that does file system testing will get you better data. OTOH, shouldn't a tool that measures raw device performance be reasonable to reflect Oracle performance when configured for raw devices? I don't know the current best practice for Oracle, but a lot of DBAs still use raw devices instead of files for their table spaces Sure, once you charchterize what the performance of the oracle DB us. (Read% vs. Write%, i/o size, etc.) VDBench is great for testing the raw device with whatever workload you want to test. Most of the Oracle folks I talk to mention they use fs these days ... but that isn't scientific by any stretch. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: storage type for ZFS
Well, no; his quote did say software or hardware. The theory is apparently that ZFS can do better at detecting (and with redundancy, correcting) errors if it's dealing with raw hardware, or as nearly so as possible. Most SANs _can_ hand out raw LUNs as well as RAID LUNs, the folks that run them are just not used to doing it. Another issue that may come up with SANs and/or hardware RAID: supposedly, storage systems with large non-volatile caches will tend to have poor performance with ZFS, because ZFS issues cache flush commands as part of committing every transaction group; this is worse if the filesystem is also being used for NFS service. Most such hardware can be configured to ignore cache flushing commands, which is safe as long as the cache is non-volatile. The above is simply my understanding of what I've read; I could be way off base, of course. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Testing of UFS, VxFS and ZFS
# zfs create pool raidz d1 … d8 Surely you didn't create the zfs pool on top of SVM metadevices? If so, that's not useful; the zfs pool should be on top of raw devices. Also, because VxFS is extent based (if I understand correctly), not unlike how MVS manages disk space I might add, _it ought_ to blow the doors off of everything for sequential reads, and probably sequential writes too, depending on the write size. OTOH, if a lot of files are created and deleted, it needs to be defragmented (although I think it can do that automatically; but there's still at least some overhead while a defrag is running). Finally, don't forget complexity. VxVM+VxFS is quite capable, but it doesn't always recover from problems as gracefully as one might hope, and it can be a real bear to get untangled sometimes (not to mention moderately tedious just to set up). SVM, although not as capable as VxVM, is much easier IMO. And zfs on top of raw devices is about as easy as it gets. That may not matter _now_, when whoever sets these up is still around; but when their replacement has to troubleshoot or rebuild, it might help to have something that's as easy as possible. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
