Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
On 28 Feb 2009, at 07:26, C. Bergström wrote: Blake wrote: Gnome GUI for desktop ZFS administration With the libzfs java bindings I am plotting a web based interface.. I'm not sure if that would meet this gnome requirement though.. Knowing specifically what you'd want to do in that interface would be good.. I planned to compare it to fishworks and the nexenta appliance as a base.. Recent builds of OpenSolaris come with SWT from the Eclipse project, which makes it possible for Java apps to use real GNOME/GTK native UIs. So your libzfs bindings may well be useful with that. Cheers, Chris ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
I for one would like an interactive attribute for zpools and filesystems, specifically for destroy. The existing behavior (no prompt) could be the default, but all filesystems would inherit from the zpool's attrib. so I'd only need to set interactive=on for the pool itself, not for each filesystem. I have yet (in almost two years of using ZFS) to bone myself by accidentally destroying tank/worthmorethanyourjob, but it's only a matter of time, regardless of how careful I am. The argument rm vs zfs destroy doesn't hold much water to me. I don't use rm -i, but destroying a single file or a hierarchy of directories is somewhat different than destroying a filesytem or entire pool. At least to my mind. As such, consider it a piece of mind feature. -- bda Cyberpunk is dead. Long live cyberpunk. http://mirrorshades.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Details on raidz boot + zfs patents?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:53 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@netsyncro.com wrote: The other question that I am less worried about is would this violate any patents.. I mean.. Sun added the initial zfs support to grub and this is essentially extending that, but I'm not aware of any patent provisions on that code or some royalty free statement about ZFS related patents from Sun.. (Frankly.. I look at Sun as /similar/ to Cononical in that I assume they only sue to protect themselves and not go after any good intention foss project..) See http://opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can VirtualBox run a 64 bit guests on 32 bit host
Check out http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/data/os Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2009, at 2:20 AM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote: Brian Hechinger wo...@4amlunch.net writes: [...] I think it would be better to answer this question that it would to attempt to answer the VirtualBox question (I run it on a 64-bit OS, so I can't really answer that anyway). Thanks yes and appreciated here The benefit to running ZFS on a 64-bit OS is if you have a large amount of RAM. I don't know what the breaking point is, but I can definitely tell you that a 32-bit kernel and 4GB ram doesn't mix well. If all you are doing is testing ZFS on VMs you probably aren't all that worried about performance so it really shouldn't be an issue for you to run 32-bit. I'd say keep your RAM allocations down, and I wish I knew what to tell you to keep it under. Hopefully someone who has a better grasp of all that can chime in. Once you put it on real hardware, however, you really want a 64-bit CPU and as much RAM as you can toss at the machine. Sounds sensible, thanks for common sense input. Just the little I've tinkered with zfs so far I'm in love already. zfs is much more responive to some kinds of things I'm used to waiting for on linux reiserfs. Commands like du, mv, rm etc on hefty amounts of data are always slow as molasses on linux/reiserfs (and reiserfs is faster than ext3). I have'nt tried ext4 but have been told it is no faster. Whereas zfs gets those jobs done in short order... very noticably faster but I am just going by feel but at least on very similar hardware (cpu wise). (The linux is on Intel 3.06 celeron 2gb ram) I guess there is something called btrfs (nicknamed butter fs) that is supposed to be linux answer to zfs but it isn't ready for primetime yet and I can say it will have a ways to go to compare to zfs. My usage and skill level is probably the lowest on this list easily but even I see some real nice features with zfs. It seams taylor made for semi-ambitious home NAS. So Brian, If you can bear with my windyness a bit more, one of the things flopping around in the back of my mind is something already mentioned here too.. change out the mobo instead of dinking around with addon pci sata controller.. I have 64 bit hardware... but am a bit scared of having lots of trouble getting opensol to run peacefully on it. Its a (somewhat old fashioned now) athlon64 2.2 ghz +3400/Aopen AK86-L mobo. (socket 754) The little jave tool that tests the hardware says my sata controller wont work (the testing tool saw it as a VIA raid controller) and suggests I turn off RAID in the bios. After a carefull look in the bios menus I'm not finding any way to turn it off so guessing the sata ports will be useless unless I install a pci addon sata controller. So thinking of justs changing out the mobo for something with stuff that is known to work. The machine came with an Asus mobo that I ruined myself by dicking aournd installing RAM... somehow shorted out something, then mobo became useless. But I'm thinking of turning to Asus again and making sure there is onboard SATA with at least 4 prts and preferebly 6. So cutting to the chase here... would you happen to have a recommendation from your own experience, or something you've heard will work and that can stand more ram... my current setup tops out at 3gb. ___ 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] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
Shrinking pools would also solve the right-sizing dilemma. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2009, at 3:37 AM, Joe Esposito j...@j-espo.com wrote: I'm using opensolaris and zfs at my house for my photography storage as well as for an offsite backup location for my employer and several side web projects. I have an 80g drive as my root drive. I recently took posesion of 2 74g 10k drives which I'd love to add as a mirror to replace the 80 g drive. From what I gather it is only possible if I zfs export my storage array and reinstall solaris on the new disks. So I guess I'm hoping zfs shrink and grow commands show up sooner or later. Just a data point. Joe Esposito www.j-espo.com On 2/28/09, C. Bergström cbergst...@netsyncro.com wrote: Blake wrote: Gnome GUI for desktop ZFS administration On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com wrote: zfs send is great for moving a filesystem with lots of tiny files, since it just handles the blocks :) I'd like to see: pool-shrinking (and an option to shrink disk A when i want disk B to become a mirror, but A is a few blocks bigger) This may be interesting... I'm not sure how often you need to shrink a pool though? Could this be classified more as a Home or SME level feature? install to mirror from the liveCD gui I'm not working on OpenSolaris at all, but for when my projects installer is more ready /we/ can certainly do this.. zfs recovery tools (sometimes bad things happen) Agreed.. part of what I think keeps zfs so stable though is the complete lack of dependence on any recovery tools.. It forces customers to bring up the issue instead of dirty hack and nobody knows. automated installgrub when mirroring an rpool This goes back to an installer option? ./C ___ 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] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote: David Magda wrote: On Feb 27, 2009, at 20:02, Richard Elling wrote: At the risk of repeating the Best Practices Guide (again): The zfs send and receive commands do not provide an enterprise-level backup solution. Yes, in its current state; hopefully that will change some point in the future (which is what we're talking about with GSoC--the potential to change the status quo). I suppose, but considering that enterprise backup solutions exist, and some are open source, why reinvent the wheel? -- richard The default mode of operation for every enterprise backup tool that I have used is file level backups. The determination of which files need to be backed up seems to be to crawl the file system looking for files that have an mtime after the previous backup. Areas of strength for such tools include: - Works with any file system that provides a POSIX interface - Restore of a full backup is an accurate representation of the data backed up - Restore can happen to a different file system type - Restoring an individual file is possible Areas of weakness include: - Extremely inefficient for file systems with lots of files and little change. - Restore of full + incremental tends to have extra files because of spotty support or performance overhead of tool that would prevent it. - Large files that have blocks rewritten get backed up in full each time - Restores of file systems with lots of small files (especially in one directory) are extremely slow There exist features (sometimes expensive add-ons) that deal with some of these shortcomings via: - Keeping track of deleted files so that a restore is more representative of what is on disk during the incremental backup. Administration manuals typically warn that this has a big performance and/or size overhead on the database used by the backup software. - Including add-ons that hook into other components (e.g. VxFS storage checkpoints, Oracle RMAN) that provide something similar to block-level incremental backups Why re-invent the wheel? - People are more likely to have snapshots available for file-level restores, and as such a zfs send data stream would only be used in the event of a complete pool loss. - It is possible to provide a general block-level backup solution so that every product doesn't have to invent it. This gives ZFS another feature benefit to put it higher in the procurement priority. - File creation slowness can likely be avoided allowing restore to happen at tape speed - To be competitive with NetApp snapmirror to tape - Even having a zfs(1M) option that could list the files that change between snapshots could be very helpful to prevent file system crawls and to avoid being fooled by bogus mtimes. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
I'm using opensolaris and zfs at my house for my photography storage as well as for an offsite backup location for my employer and several side web projects. I have an 80g drive as my root drive. I recently took posesion of 2 74g 10k drives which I'd love to add as a mirror to replace the 80 g drive. Why do you want to use a small 10K rpm disk? A modern 1TB disk at 5400/7200 rpm (at $100) will put it to shame. Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Details on raidz boot + zfs patents?
Mike Gerdts wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:53 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@netsyncro.com wrote: The other question that I am less worried about is would this violate any patents.. I mean.. Sun added the initial zfs support to grub and this is essentially extending that, but I'm not aware of any patent provisions on that code or some royalty free statement about ZFS related patents from Sun.. (Frankly.. I look at Sun as /similar/ to Cononical in that I assume they only sue to protect themselves and not go after any good intention foss project..) See http://opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents. Sun has contributed zfs code to their grub fork, but it's not under the CDDL. So this doesn't apply. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] At Wits End for ZFS Permission Settings
All; I do apologize for making this query in this list. But I am at my wits end. I have a directory like so $ ls -l total 47 drwxr-xr-x 19 adminadmin 23 Feb 27 17:52 Named drw-r- 74 adminadmin556 Feb 25 03:46 Not Sorted --- Directory in Question $ ls -dv Not Sorted drw-r- 74 adminadmin556 Feb 25 03:46 Not Sorted 0:owner@:execute:deny 1:owner@:list_directory/read_data/add_file/write_data/add_subdirectory /append_data/write_xattr/write_attributes/write_acl/write_owner :allow 2:group@:add_file/write_data/add_subdirectory/append_data/execute:deny 3:group@:list_directory/read_data:allow 4:everyone@:list_directory/read_data/add_file/write_data /add_subdirectory/append_data/write_xattr/execute/write_attributes /write_acl/write_owner:deny 5:everyone@:read_xattr/read_attributes/read_acl/synchronize:allow But I cannot access the directory Not Sorted as user admin AT ALL. I changed my root path to ensure that chmod points to the chmod in /usr/bin as opposed to /usr/gnu/bin (sorry, but i really think that placing the GNU chmod first in the default root path is a real dum idea) I then did (as root) #chmod -R A- Not Sorted in an attempt to remove all ACL. Didn't work. I tried setting the entire ACL manually via (again as root) #chmod -R A=owner@:read_data/write_data:allow,group@:read_data:allow Not Sorted drw-r- 74 adminadmin556 Feb 25 03:46 Not Sorted --- Directory in Question Didn't work either. User admin is still unable to enter. Again as root #chmod -R A=owner@:read_data/write_data:allow,group@:read_data:allow Not Sorted #ls -dv Not Sorted drw-r-+ 74 adminadmin556 Feb 25 03:46 Not Sorted 0:user:admin:list_directory/read_data/add_file/write_data:allow 1:group@:list_directory/read_data:allow 2:owner@:execute:deny 3:owner@:list_directory/read_data/add_file/write_data/add_subdirectory /append_data/write_xattr/write_attributes/write_acl/write_owner :allow 4:group@:add_file/write_data/add_subdirectory/append_data/execute:deny 5:group@:list_directory/read_data:allow 6:everyone@:list_directory/read_data/add_file/write_data /add_subdirectory/append_data/write_xattr/execute/write_attributes /write_acl/write_owner:deny 7:everyone@:read_xattr/read_attributes/read_acl/synchronize:allow User admin STILL cannot go in! What gives? Warmest Regards Steven Sim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Details on raidz boot + zfs patents?
C. Bergström cbergst...@netsyncro.com wrote: See http://opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents. Sun has contributed zfs code to their grub fork, but it's not under the CDDL. So this doesn't apply. Under GPLv2 you may only cntribute code where your patents apply if you grant royal free usage. BTW: this is why the FreeDB (CDDB) code is still free. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/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] At Wits End for ZFS Permission Settings
Hi Steven, I don't have access to my usual resources to test the ACL syntax but I think the root cause is that you don't have execute permission on the Not Started directory. Try the chmod syntax again but this time include execute:allow for admin on Not Sorted or add it like this: # chmod A+user:admin:execute:allow Not Sorted See chmod.1 for more info. Cindy - Original Message - From: Steven Sim unixan...@gmail.com Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:26 am Subject: [zfs-discuss] At Wits End for ZFS Permission Settings To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org All; I do apologize for making this query in this list. But I am at my wits end. I have a directory like so $ ls -l total 47 drwxr-xr-x 19 adminadmin 23 Feb 27 17:52 Named drw-r- 74 adminadmin556 Feb 25 03:46 Not Sorted --- Directory in Question $ ls -dv Not Sorted drw-r- 74 adminadmin556 Feb 25 03:46 Not Sorted 0:owner@:execute:deny 1:owner@:list_directory/read_data/add_file/write_data/add_subdirectory /append_data/write_xattr/write_attributes/write_acl/write_owner :allow 2:group@:add_file/write_data/add_subdirectory/append_data/execute:deny 3:group@:list_directory/read_data:allow 4:everyone@:list_directory/read_data/add_file/write_data /add_subdirectory/append_data/write_xattr/execute/write_attributes /write_acl/write_owner:deny 5:everyone@:read_xattr/read_attributes/read_acl/synchronize:allow But I cannot access the directory Not Sorted as user admin AT ALL. I changed my root path to ensure that chmod points to the chmod in /usr/bin as opposed to /usr/gnu/bin (sorry, but i really think that placing the GNU chmod first in the default root path is a real dum idea) I then did (as root) #chmod -R A- Not Sorted in an attempt to remove all ACL. Didn't work. I tried setting the entire ACL manually via (again as root) #chmod -R A=owner@:read_data/write_data:allow,group@:read_data:allow Not Sorted drw-r- 74 adminadmin556 Feb 25 03:46 Not Sorted --- Directory in Question Didn't work either. User admin is still unable to enter. Again as root #chmod -R A=owner@:read_data/write_data:allow,group@:read_data:allow Not Sorted #ls -dv Not Sorted drw-r-+ 74 adminadmin556 Feb 25 03:46 Not Sorted 0:user:admin:list_directory/read_data/add_file/write_data:allow 1:group@:list_directory/read_data:allow 2:owner@:execute:deny 3:owner@:list_directory/read_data/add_file/write_data/add_subdirectory /append_data/write_xattr/write_attributes/write_acl/write_owner :allow 4:group@:add_file/write_data/add_subdirectory/append_data/execute:deny 5:group@:list_directory/read_data:allow 6:everyone@:list_directory/read_data/add_file/write_data /add_subdirectory/append_data/write_xattr/execute/write_attributes /write_acl/write_owner:deny 7:everyone@:read_xattr/read_attributes/read_acl/synchronize:allow User admin STILL cannot go in! What gives? Warmest Regards Steven Sim ___ 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] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:31 AM, casper@sun.com wrote: I'm using opensolaris and zfs at my house for my photography storage as well as for an offsite backup location for my employer and several side web projects. I have an 80g drive as my root drive. I recently took posesion of 2 74g 10k drives which I'd love to add as a mirror to replace the 80 g drive. Why do you want to use a small 10K rpm disk? A modern 1TB disk at 5400/7200 rpm (at $100) will put it to shame. Casper fair enough. I just have a pair of these sitting here from a pull at work. The data array is currently 4x1TB with another hot swap bay ready for 4x??? when the need arises. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Joe Esposito j...@j-espo.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:31 AM, casper@sun.com wrote: I'm using opensolaris and zfs at my house for my photography storage as well as for an offsite backup location for my employer and several side web projects. I have an 80g drive as my root drive. I recently took posesion of 2 74g 10k drives which I'd love to add as a mirror to replace the 80 g drive. Why do you want to use a small 10K rpm disk? A modern 1TB disk at 5400/7200 rpm (at $100) will put it to shame. Casper fair enough. I just have a pair of these sitting here from a pull at work. The data array is currently 4x1TB with another hot swap bay ready for 4x??? when the need arises. That's not entirely true. Maybe it will put it to shame at streaming sequential I/O. The 10k drives will still wipe the floor with any modern 7200rpm drive for random IO and seek times. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Tim wrote: That's not entirely true. Maybe it will put it to shame at streaming sequential I/O. The 10k drives will still wipe the floor with any modern 7200rpm drive for random IO and seek times. Or perhaps streaming sequential I/O will have similar performance, with much better performance for random IO and seek times. It is always best to consult the vendor spec sheet. Regardless, it is much easier to update with the same size, or a larger size drive. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
pool-shrinking (and an option to shrink disk A when i want disk B to become a mirror, but A is a few blocks bigger) This may be interesting... I'm not sure how often you need to shrink a pool though? Could this be classified more as a Home or SME level feature? Enterprise level especially in SAN environments need this. Projects own theyr own pools and constantly grow and *shrink* space. And they have no downtime available for that. give a +1 if you agree Thomas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
I would really add : make insane zfs destroy -r| poolname as harmless as zpool destroy poolname (recoverable) zfs destroy -r| poolname|/filesystem this should behave like that: o snapshot the filesystem to be deleted (each, name it @deletedby_operatorname_date) o hide the snapshot as long as the pool has enough space and property snapshotbeforedelete=on (default off) is set 'on' o free space by removing those snapshots no earlier then configured in a inheritable pool/filesystem property snapshotbeforedeleteremoval=3days (=0 preserve forever, 30min preserve for 30 minutes, ...) o prevent deletion of a pool or filesystem if at least one snapshot from the above save actions exists down the tree o purging of snapshots would be done by To be honest, I don't want a discussion like the rm -rf is one. In front of the keyboard or inside scripts we are all humans with all theyr mistakes. In opposite to the rm -rf, the ZFS Design should take this extension without major changes. It should be a generic rule of dump to implement safety if it is possible at resonable low cost. I think the full range of users, Enterprise to Home will appreciate that theyr multi-million-$$-business/home_data does not go down accidentially with the interactive=on (Bryan) or the the idea written here. This in case someone makes an error and all the data could still be there (!)...ZFS should protect the user as well and not only look at the hardware redundancy. Thomas PS: think of the day where simple operator $NAME makes a typo zfs destroy -r poolname and all the data still sits on the disk. But no one is able to bring that valueable data back, except restoration from tape with hours of downtime. Sorry for repeating that, it hurts so much to not having this feature. On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 04:35:05AM -0500, Bryan Allen wrote: I for one would like an interactive attribute for zpools and filesystems, specifically for destroy. The existing behavior (no prompt) could be the default, but all filesystems would inherit from the zpool's attrib. so I'd only need to set interactive=on for the pool itself, not for each filesystem. I have yet (in almost two years of using ZFS) to bone myself by accidentally destroying tank/worthmorethanyourjob, but it's only a matter of time, regardless of how careful I am. The argument rm vs zfs destroy doesn't hold much water to me. I don't use rm -i, but destroying a single file or a hierarchy of directories is somewhat different than destroying a filesytem or entire pool. At least to my mind. As such, consider it a piece of mind feature. -- bda Cyberpunk is dead. Long live cyberpunk. http://mirrorshades.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Thomas Wagner +49-171-6135989 http://www.wagner-net.net ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:44:59PM +0100, Thomas Wagner wrote: pool-shrinking (and an option to shrink disk A when i want disk B to become a mirror, but A is a few blocks bigger) This may be interesting... I'm not sure how often you need to shrink a pool though? Could this be classified more as a Home or SME level feature? Enterprise level especially in SAN environments need this. Projects own theyr own pools and constantly grow and *shrink* space. And they have no downtime available for that. Multiple pools on one server only makes sense if you are going to have different RAS for each pool for business reasons. It's a lot easier to have a single pool though. I recommend it. Nico -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@sun.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:44:59PM +0100, Thomas Wagner wrote: pool-shrinking (and an option to shrink disk A when i want disk B to become a mirror, but A is a few blocks bigger) This may be interesting... I'm not sure how often you need to shrink a pool though? Could this be classified more as a Home or SME level feature? Enterprise level especially in SAN environments need this. Projects own theyr own pools and constantly grow and *shrink* space. And they have no downtime available for that. Multiple pools on one server only makes sense if you are going to have different RAS for each pool for business reasons. It's a lot easier to have a single pool though. I recommend it. Other scenarios for multiple pools include: - Need independent portability of data between servers. For example, in a HA cluster environment, various workloads will be mapped to various pools. Since ZFS does not do active-active clustering, a single pool for anything other than a simple active-standby cluster is not useful. - Array based copies are needed. There are times when copies of data are performed at a storage array level to allow testing and support operations to happen on different spindles. For example, in a consolidated database environment, each database may be constrained to a set of spindles so that each database can be replicated or copied independent of the various others. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
Absolutely agree. I'l love to be able to free up some LUNs that I don't need in the pool any more. Also, concatenation of devices in a zpool would be great for devices that have LUN limits. It also seems like it may be an easy thing to implement. -Aaron On 2/28/09, Thomas Wagner thomas.wag...@gmx.net wrote: pool-shrinking (and an option to shrink disk A when i want disk B to become a mirror, but A is a few blocks bigger) This may be interesting... I'm not sure how often you need to shrink a pool though? Could this be classified more as a Home or SME level feature? Enterprise level especially in SAN environments need this. Projects own theyr own pools and constantly grow and *shrink* space. And they have no downtime available for that. give a +1 if you agree Thomas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Sent from my mobile device ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
Multiple pools on one server only makes sense if you are going to have different RAS for each pool for business reasons. It's a lot easier to have a single pool though. I recommend it. A couple of other things to consider to go with that recommendation. - never build a pool larger than you are willing to restore. Bad things can still happen that would require you to restore the entire pool. Convenience and SLAs aren't always in agreement :-) The advances in ZFS availability might make me look at my worst case restore scenario a little different though - but there will still be a restore case that worries me. - as I look at the recent lifecycle improvements with zones (in the Solaris 10 context of zones), I really like upgrade on attach. That means I will be slinging zones more freely. So I need to design my pools to match that philosophy. - if you are using clustering technologies, pools will go hand in hand with failover boundaries. So if I have multiple failover zones, I will have multiple pools. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 05:19:26PM -0600, Mike Gerdts wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@sun.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:44:59PM +0100, Thomas Wagner wrote: pool-shrinking (and an option to shrink disk A when i want disk B to become a mirror, but A is a few blocks bigger) This may be interesting... I'm not sure how often you need to shrink a pool though? Could this be classified more as a Home or SME level feature? Enterprise level especially in SAN environments need this. Projects own theyr own pools and constantly grow and *shrink* space. And they have no downtime available for that. Multiple pools on one server only makes sense if you are going to have different RAS for each pool for business reasons. It's a lot easier to have a single pool though. I recommend it. Other scenarios for multiple pools include: - Need independent portability of data between servers. For example, in a HA cluster environment, various workloads will be mapped to various pools. Since ZFS does not do active-active clustering, a single pool for anything other than a simple active-standby cluster is not useful. Right, but normally each head in a cluster will have only one pool imported. The Sun Storage 7xxx do this. One pool per-head, two pools altogether in a cluster. - Array based copies are needed. There are times when copies of data are performed at a storage array level to allow testing and support operations to happen on different spindles. For example, in a consolidated database environment, each database may be constrained to a set of spindles so that each database can be replicated or copied independent of the various others. This gets you back into managing physical space allocation. Do you really want that? If you're using zvols you can do array based copies of you zvols. If you're using filesystems then you should just use normal backup tools. Nico -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@sun.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 05:19:26PM -0600, Mike Gerdts wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Nicolas Williams nicolas.willi...@sun.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:44:59PM +0100, Thomas Wagner wrote: pool-shrinking (and an option to shrink disk A when i want disk B to become a mirror, but A is a few blocks bigger) This may be interesting... I'm not sure how often you need to shrink a pool though? Could this be classified more as a Home or SME level feature? Enterprise level especially in SAN environments need this. Projects own theyr own pools and constantly grow and *shrink* space. And they have no downtime available for that. Multiple pools on one server only makes sense if you are going to have different RAS for each pool for business reasons. It's a lot easier to have a single pool though. I recommend it. Other scenarios for multiple pools include: - Need independent portability of data between servers. For example, in a HA cluster environment, various workloads will be mapped to various pools. Since ZFS does not do active-active clustering, a single pool for anything other than a simple active-standby cluster is not useful. Right, but normally each head in a cluster will have only one pool imported. Not necessarily. Suppose I have a group of servers with a bunch of zones. Each zone represents a service group that needs to independently fail over between servers. In that case, I may have a zpool per zone. It seems this is how it is done in the real world.[1] 1. Upton, Tom. A Conversation with Jason Hoffman. ACM Queue. January/February 2008. 9. The Sun Storage 7xxx do this. One pool per-head, two pools altogether in a cluster. Makes sense for your use case. If you are looking at a zpool per zone, it is likely a zpool created on a LUN provided by a Sun Storage 7xxx that is presented to multiple hosts. That is, ZFS on top of ZFS. - Array based copies are needed. There are times when copies of data are performed at a storage array level to allow testing and support operations to happen on different spindles. For example, in a consolidated database environment, each database may be constrained to a set of spindles so that each database can be replicated or copied independent of the various others. This gets you back into managing physical space allocation. Do you really want that? If you're using zvols you can do array based copies of you zvols. If you're using filesystems then you should just use normal backup tools. There are times when you have no real choice. If a regulation or a lawyer's interpretation of a regulation says that you need to have physically separate components, you need to have physically separate components. If your disaster recovery requirements mean that you need to have a copy of data at a different site and array based copies have historically been used - it is unlikely that while true ; do zfs send | ssh | zfs receive will be adapted in the first round of implementation. Given this, zvols don't do it today. When you have a smoking hole, the gap in transactions left by normal backup tools is not always good enough - especially if some of that smoke is coming from the tape library. Array based replication tends to allow you to keep much tighter tolerances on just how many committed transactions you are willing to lose. -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
