Fwd: [zfs-discuss] Re: Mac OS X Leopard to use ZFS
This missed the group! -- Forwarded message -- From: BVK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Jun 8, 2007 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Mac OS X Leopard to use ZFS To: Rick Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 6/8/07, Rick Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm hoping for L4, myself. Though L4 is good and fast, it has its problems. It is not secure (remember, with security through IPC redirection option, L4 is fast argument is gone) and its kernel-memory-management is not well defined. I think L4 still needs to evolve. BTW, i believe microkernels is the _right_ way and L4 is a first step in that direction. / bvk-chaitanya ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X Leopard to use ZFS
On 6/8/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-) I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their Mach based (?) BSD and switch to solaris. File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their improvements may never get back into the community. To _me_ Apple like company looks more dangerous than Microsoft :-( / bvk-chaitanya ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: zfs send/receive incremental
Starfox wrote: None of the scripts that I looked at seemed to offered any sort of error recovery. I think I'll be able to use this as a starting point (and maybe the man pages can be updated to include that you can use any common snapshot to send -i - that fact is not obvious to those who are unfamiliar with the capabilities of ZFS). My experience of handling errors in zfs_backup is that since the script is duplicating the snapshots on the remote file system if it fails I simply run it again and it picks up where it left off. That said it has never failed so far, I've interrupted it or the system has crashed due to CR 6566921 but in both cases running the script again it does just what it should, no more no less. --chris 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] Mac OS X Leopard to use ZFS
On 08/06/07, BVK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/8/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-) I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their Mach based (?) BSD and switch to solaris. I think that's extremely unlikely. Only the OSX userland is BSD like, and I'm not sure what replacing that would gain them. Why would they want a Solaris kernel? File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their improvements may never get back into the community. Apple have given plenty back to the BSD projects (although nothing required them to). -- 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] Mac OS X Leopard to use ZFS
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Toby Thain wrote: On 8-Jun-07, at 3:13 AM, BVK wrote: On 6/8/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-) I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their Mach based (?) BSD and switch to solaris. Many think this would be a good move. :) File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their improvements may never get back into the community. To _me_ Apple like company looks more dangerous than Microsoft :-( Perhaps when they're at 95% market share. Please - this thread is only diverging with each post and is already _way_ off topic. Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] IRC: thought: irc.freenode.net #zfs for platform-agnostic or multi-platform discussion
Graham Perrin wrote: We have irc://irc.freenode.net/solaris and irc://irc.freenode.net/opensolaris and the other channels listed at http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/entry/opensolaris_on_irc AND growing discussion of ZFS in Mac- 'FUSE- and Linux-oriented channels BUT unless I'm missing something, no IRC channel for ZFS. Please: * which IRC channel will be best for discussion of ZFS from a multi-platform or platform-agnostic viewpoint? #zfs though it looks like there aren't many people on at the momentand maybe someone had the same idea I did and just opened it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X Leopard to use ZFS
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, BVK wrote: File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their improvements may never get back into the community. But that can't happen (to files that Apple modifies at least): the CDDL dictates that any changes you make to CDDLed files must be made available under the CDDL. If Apple create a NEW source file, then yes, it is possible that they wouldn't release the source for that file; the CDDL permits this. -- 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: SMART
On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 06:51:17AM -0700, J?rgen Keil wrote: You are right... I shouldn't post in the middle of the night... nForce chipsets don't support AHCI. Btw. does anybody have a status update for bug 6296435, native sata driver needed for nVIDIA mcp04 and mcp55 controllers http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6296435 ? Commit to Fix target was snv_59, but we're at snv_67 now... The RTI has been filed, but the team is hashing out some final issues. - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Holding disks for home servers
I only see 15 disks in your CM stacker. I designed and built a system for work with the CMStacker and relocated the power and IO panel from the top slot to the side cover (where the spot for a small fan is) and it works great. A single Seasonic 600AS powers the entire system nicely with PF of 0.98. This unit is designed for small heat signature nearline storage so performance wasn't a primary factor. With 16x750gb and a Geode-NX processor board the entire system runs right around 253w. I ran into acumulative vibration issues right off the bat and had 3 drive failures within the first 2 months not to mention the slow oscilating drone it produced. taking 2 of the 4 drive carriers and flipping them upside down so that 1/2 the drives were spinning the other direction solved the vibration problem and it's been running solidly for 2+ years now in near silence. For anyone using more than a single one of these drive sleds, If your data is important to you, I seriously urge you to consider staggering the orientation of them, however ugly it may appear. You've been warned ;) -=dave - Original Message - From: Rob Logan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ZFS discussion list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:33 AM Subject: [zfs-discuss] Holding disks for home servers On the third upgrade of the home nas, I chose http://www.addonics.com/products/raid_system/ae4rcs35nsa.asp to hold the disks. each hold 5 disks, in the space of three slots and 4 fit into a http://www.google.com/search?q=stacker+810 case for a total of 20 disks. But if given a chance to go back in time, the http://www.supermicro.com/products/accessories/mobilerack/CSE-M35TQ.cfm has LEDs next to the drive, and doesn't vibrate as much. photos in http://rob.com/sun/zfs/ Rob ___ 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: Re: Re: ZFS consistency guarantee
1. ZFS atomic operation that commits data. 2. Writes come into the app. 3. The db put in hotbackup mode. 4. Snapshot taken on storage. 5. ZFS atomic operation that commits data. So if i do a snap restore, ZFS might revert to point1, but from the db perspective, it is inconsistent and we would need to do a recovery..correct?. Right. So you'll want to synchronize your snapshots with a database consistency. Just like doing backups. I have gotten the feeling that everyone is misunderstanding everyone else in this thread ;) My understanding is that a zfs snapshot that can be proven to have happened subsequent to a particular write() (or link(), etc), is guaranteed to contain the data that was written. Anything else would massively decrease the usefulness of snapshots. Is this incorrect? If not, feel free to ignore the remainder of this E-Mail. If it is, then I don't see why the filesystem would be reverted to (1). It should in fact be guaranteed to revert to (4) (unless the creation of the snapshot is itself not guaranteed to be persistent without an explicit global sync by the administrator - but I doubt this is the case?). Regardless of the details of snapshots, I think the point that needs making to the OP is that regardless of filesystem issues the data as written to that filesystem by the application must always be consistent from the perspective of the application, and that a snapshot just gives you a snapshot of a filesystem for which any read will return whatever it would have done exactly at the point of the snapshot. If the application has not written the data, it will not be part of the snapshot. Thus if the application has writes pending that are needed for consistency, those writes must complete prior to snapshotting. The synching, which I assume refer to fsync() and/or the sync command, is about ensuring that the view of the filesystem (or usually a subset of it) as seen by applications is actually committed to persistent storage. This is done either to guarantee that some application-level data is committed and will remain in the face of a crash (e.g. a banking application does an SQL COMMIT), or as an overkill way of ensuring that some I/O operation B physically happens after some I/O operation A (such that in the event of a crash, B will never appear on disk if A does not also appear) (such as a database maintaining internal transactional consistency). Now, assuming that snapshots work in the way I assume and ask about above, the use of a zfs snapshot at a point in time when the application has written consistent data to the filesystem is sufficient to guarantee consistency in the event of a crash. Essentially the zfs snapshot can be used to achieve the effect of fsync(), with the added benefit of being able to administratively roll back to the previous version rather than just guaranteeing that there is some consistent state to return back to. (Incidentally, since, according to a post here on the list in response to a related question I had, ZFS already guarantees ordering of writes there is presumably some pretty significant performance improvements to be had if a database was made aware of this and allowed a weaker form of COMMIT where you drop the persistence requirement, but keep the consistency requirement.) -- / Peter Schuller PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller [EMAIL PROTECTED]' Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: ZFS consistency guarantee
1. ZFS atomic operation that commits data. 2. Writes come into the app. 3. The db put in hotbackup mode. 4. Snapshot taken on storage. 5. ZFS atomic operation that commits data. So if i do a snap restore, ZFS might revert to point1, but from the db= perspective, it is inconsistent and we would need to do a recovery..correct?. =20 Right. So you'll want to synchronize your snapshots with a database consistency. Just like doing backups. I have gotten the feeling that everyone is misunderstanding everyone else in this thread ;) I don't know that everyone is misunderstanding, but I did make a blunder with my Right. You are correct that the snap restore should have no reason to revert to point 1. The snapshot at point 4 would also be certain to commit data as well as points 1 and 5. -- Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Technical Consultant TAOShttp://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Re: ZFS consistency guarantee
Thanks Darren, so a sync should do the job for me in that case. How about locking the FS so that i dont miss any new writes further on?. Anything similar to lockfs?. 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: ZFS with expanding LUNs
Did we ever get a reply to this?, As somebody mentioned, the generic answer was use ZFS, but i never got to know how. I havent tried it myself but i was curious to know since i will be implementing ZFS shortly. 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: Resizing lun.
Hi Eric, Is zfs dynamic lun expansion possible now?. thanks! Ganes 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: Re: Re: Re: ZFS consistency guarantee
Thanks Darren, so a sync should do the job for me in that case. How about locking the FS so that i dont miss any new writes further on?. I'm not sure I understand what you might miss here. Normally you'd ask your application to make itself consistent, take a snapshot, then when the snapshot was complete you'd notify the application that it was free to do whatever it did normally. What would being able to lock the FS accomplish for you? Anything similar to lockfs?. Not that I'm aware of, but I haven't looked. -- Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Technical Consultant TAOShttp://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
