Re: [zfs-discuss] 100% kernel usage
Some more insight: I have the following zpools setup: aaa_zvol: 2 250GB IDE in Raid0 storage raidZ1: 1 500 GB IDE 1 500 GB SATA //aaa_zvol/aaa_zvol (the zvol exported from the aaa_zvol pool) When I run the array in a degraded mode, ie place one of the drives in the offline state, the kernel doesn't seem to spike. When I put the offline drive online and resliver, the 100% kernel usage appears when transferring from the network to the full operational array. I remove each of the drives in turn and tried this experiment, so it doesn't seem to be down to a specific drive/interface. I wonder if using a zvol as part of a raidz is an issue? Also, cross-posting to ZFS list. -- 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] cannot mount '/tank/home': directory is not empty
Sorry, I don't know what happened, but it seems like I was not subscribed to receive replies for this thread so I never saw people's replies to my original post... user error probably :) jone, I think you hit the nail on the head: I *do* seem to remember issuing a 'zfs mount -a' at some point, but I unfortunately I don't remember why -- presumably as some panacea for file systems that failed to mount due to the problem mentioned in this thread. For Richard Elling, this info might be useful: - I originally had ZFS file systems as follows: /tank/home /tank/home/simon /tank/home/simon/projects /tank/home/simon/photo /tank/home/simon/video As part of the boot disk of SXCE (not OpenSolaris with its rpool zpool), I had the following: /export/home/simon/... Therefore when I tried to change the mountpoint of /tank/home/simon/... to /export/home/simon/... it failed as /export/home/simon etc already existed. It was at that point that the trouble started, but I don't remember if the problem occurred immediately at this point, or immediately afterwards when I tried to restore the mountpoint back to /tank/home/simon/... I think 'jone' is correct in stating that there is some kind of 'race' condition occurring when ZFS tries to remount the file systems after this kind of error occurs (can't mount, blah blah directory not empty). If I was a betting man, I would bet that ZFS is trying to mount child file systems before parent file systems. I think I came to this conclusion by scanning various log files as root when I was in the single user mode after boot errors, and then I saw that it was trying to mount e.g. /tank/home/simon/projects before /tank/home/simon . So it looks like some table containing the file system mount order got screwed up, if that's possible. If you need any more help, I'll try to help, but I can't scan back through log files for clues, as I broke the pin on that IDE boot drive whilst re-inserting the cable... oh... *%!£$$! :) Cheers, Simon http://breden.org.uk/2009/05/01/home-fileserver-a-year-in-zfs/ -- 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] cannot mount '/tank/home': directory is not empty
No probs, glad it worked for you too. It gave me quite a fright too when it happened :) -- 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] eon or nexentacore or opensolaris
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Andre Lueno-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: Hi Bogdan, I'd recommend the following RAM minimums for a fair balance of performance. 700Mb 32-bit 1Gb 64-bit OK, it probably means 2GB when it goes actually practical. :-) Thanks! -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] pkg.opensolaris.org dead ?
Cannot refresh the package catalog today : Unable to contact valid package server Encountered the following error(s): Unable to contact any configured publishers. This is likely a network configuration problem. Any known outage at opensolaris.org ? Or is it the network in between ? Network here (Germany) is ok, traceroute ends at bbnet. ... 9 sl-bb20-cop-15-0-0.sprintlink.net (80.77.64.33) 24.927 ms 24.886 ms 24.981 ms 10 144.232.24.12 (144.232.24.12) 110.464 ms 104.632 ms 110.111 ms 11 sl-crs1-rly-0-8-5-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.73) 109.393 ms 108.952 ms 109.313 ms 12 sl-crs2-sj-0-5-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.20.186) 176.372 ms 176.715 ms 176.464 ms 13 sl-gw19-sj-15-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.0.250) 169.439 ms 169.585 ms 169.491 ms 14 144.232.191.202 (144.232.191.202) 162.901 ms 167.966 ms 163.025 ms 15 border2.te7-1-bbnet1.sfo002.pnap.net (63.251.63.17) 168.038 ms 162.928 ms 163.028 ms 16 * * * 17 * * * ... -- 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] pkg.opensolaris.org dead ?
Damn, wrong list. Sorry ! -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs replication via zfs send/recv dead after 2009.06 update
Hello,
I had two thumpers replicating via zfs incremental send/recv croned over ssh
with blowfish eneabled under 2008.11. The 2009.06 update nuked blowfish and my
cronjob failed in then deleted the snapshots on the master and slave servers.
now if I try to run the job I get the error:
cannot receive incremental stream: most recent snapshot of slave/slavezfsvol
does not
match incremental source
Is there any way to recover from this error without re-syncing the zfs volumes
from scratch?
Here is the cron job
/root/zync dataPool/wigler r...@bhstore11 dataPool/wiglerBHStore11
Here is the salient cron script
ENCRYPT=-c blowfish
DATE=`/usr/gnu/bin/date +%s`
HOSTNAME=`hostname`
# Datafile is found, creating incr.
echo Incremental started at `date`
zfs snapshot $...@${date}
zfs send -i $...@`cat /root/run/zynk` $...@${date} | ssh $ENCRYPT
${2} zfs recv -F ${3}
zfs destroy $...@`cat /root/run/zynk`
ssh ${2} zfs destroy $...@`cat /root/run/zynk`
echo ${DATE} /root/run/zynk
echo Incremental complete at `date`
Is there is a way to force a re-sync of the zfs volumes, as there has been no
change in data on the master volume hat needs to be synced to the slave server?
Thanks,
Dan
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation
Hi, I just installed 2009.06 and found that compression isn't enabled by default when filesystems are created. Does is make sense to have an RFE open for this? (I'll open one tonight if need be.) We keep telling people to turn on compression. Are there any situations where turning on compression doesn't make sense, like rpool/swap? what about rpool/dump? Thanks, ~~sa Shannon A. Fiume System Administrator, Infrastructure and Lab Management, Cloud Computing shannon dot fiume at sun dot com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs list -t snapshots
Hi Harry, I use this stuff every day and I can't figure out the right syntax either. :-) Reviewing the zfs man page syntax, it looks like you should be able to use this syntax: # zfs list -t snapshot dataset But it doesn't work: # zfs list -t snapshot rpool/export cannot open 'rpool/export': operation not applicable to datasets of this type Instead, use -r (recursive) option, like this: # zfs list -rt snapshot z3/www If you modified the auto-snapshot feature, then check this section for where that information is stored: http://wikis.sun.com/display/OpenSolarisInfo/How+to+Manage+the+Automatic+ZFS+Snapshot+Service Cindy Harry Putnam wrote: I've been very inactive on opensolaris for a while and have forgotten a discouraging amount of what little I knew. I want to get back using the snapshot capability of zfs and am having a time figuring out how to use zfs list -t snapshot. man zfs shows: zfs list [-rH] [-o property[,...]] [-t type[,...]] [-s property] ... [-S property] ... [filesystem|volume|snapshot] So I guess I can give a final argument of a filesystem but not getting it right. zfs list -t snapshot (with no more args) shows only one pool and filesystem. I have several but all I see is a list like this: [...] z3/www/rea...@zfs-auto-snap:hourly-2009-06-14-20:00[...] z3/www/z...@zfs-auto-snap:frequent-2009-06-14-20:0 [...] [...] Everything in the list is under z3/www[...] But zfs list shows 3 different pools with filesystems under them rpool z2 z3. Does it mean no snapshots are being taken anywhere else? I may have set something up but can't remember... and not sure where to look and find out. Also what is a legal name to give to zfs list -t snapshot zfs list -t snapshot name None of z3/www z3/www/reader rpool/exports rpool/ /rpool works. Man page specifies `filesystems|volume|snapshot' so what notation works? ___ 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] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
According to this webpage, there are some errors that makes ZFS unusable under certain conditions. That is not really optimal for an Enterprise file system. In my opinion the ZFS team should focus on bug correction instead of adding new functionality. The functionality that exists far surpass any other file system, therefore it is better to fix bugs. In my opinion. Read those error reports and complaints and data corruption: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS -- 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] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
Orvar Korvar no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: According to this webpage, there are some errors that makes ZFS unusable under certain conditions. That is not really optimal for an Enterprise file system. In my opinion the ZFS team should focus on bug correction instead of adding new functionality. The functionality that exists far surpass any other file system, therefore it is better to fix bugs. In my opinion. Read those error reports and complaints and data corruption: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS Could you help, I cannot see any reference to data corruption in this page 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
[zfs-discuss] replication issue
Hi, I just tried replicating a zfs dataset, which failed because the dataset has a mountpoint set and zfs received tried to mount the target dataset to the same directory. I.e. I did the following: $ zfs send -R mypool/h...@20090615 | zfs receive -d backup cannot mount '/var/hg': directory is not empty Is this a known issue or is this a user error because of -d on the receiving side? This happened on: % uname -a SunOS azalin 5.10 Generic_139555-08 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-2500 - Thomas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
In the comments there are several people complaining of loosing data. That doesnt sound to good. It takes a long time to build a good reputation, and 5 minutes to ruin it. We dont want ZFS to loose it's reputation of an uber file system. -- 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] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Orvar Korvar wrote: In the comments there are several people complaining of loosing data. That doesnt sound to good. It takes a long time to build a good reputation, and 5 minutes to ruin it. We dont want ZFS to loose it's reputation of an uber file system. I recognize the fellow who griped the most on Slashdot. He wasted quite a lot of time here because he was not willing to read any of the zfs documentation. His PC had failing memory chips which resulted in data corruption. He did not use any ZFS RAID features. Basically this Slashdot discussion is typical Apple discussion with lots of people who don't know anything at all talking about what Apple may or may not do. Anyone who did learn what Apple is planning to do can't say anything since they had to sign an NDA to learn it. As usual, the users will learn what Apple decided to do at midnight on the day the new OS is released. If Apple dumps ZFS it would be most likely due to not having developed sufficient GUIs to make it totally user friendly. 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] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Orvar Korvar no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: According to this webpage, there are some errors that makes ZFS unusable under certain conditions. That is not really optimal for an Enterprise file system. In my opinion the ZFS team should focus on bug correction instead of adding new functionality. The functionality that exists far surpass any other file system, therefore it is better to fix bugs. In my opinion. Read those error reports and complaints and data corruption: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS Could you help, I cannot see any reference to data corruption in this page Jörg Did you actually search the page? http://opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=318457#318457 http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-April/027748.html http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-April/027748.html http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-April/027765.html http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-January/025601.html http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-March/027629.html http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-March/027365.html http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-March/027257.html --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?
so, besides performance there COULD be some stability issues. thanks for the answers - i think i`ll stay with 32bit, even if there COULD be issues. (i`m happy to report and help fixing those) i don`t have free 64bit hardware around for building storage boxes. -- 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] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
Orvar Korvar wrote: In the comments there are several people complaining of loosing data. That doesnt sound to good. It takes a long time to build a good reputation, and 5 minutes to ruin it. We dont want ZFS to loose it's reputation of an uber file system. With due respect, I recommend that no-one waste the same five minutes that I have just done reading the comments section on Slashdot. It is a complete load of subjective claptrap. Do something sensible instead like microwaving a curry or calling your Mom (well maybe not the latter...) Bob F got it absolutely right about possible lack of GUI being a stumbler for potential users of ZFS in the Apple camp; but to be able to manipulate a filesystem with the underlying power that ZFS has via just two commands (or a few more if you include the SMF bits) is mindblowing. Try comparing that with the mess that is VxVM/VxFS. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Shannon Fiume wrote: I just installed 2009.06 and found that compression isn't enabled by default when filesystems are created. Does is make sense to have an RFE open for this? (I'll open one tonight if need be.) We keep telling people to turn on compression. Are there any situations where turning on compression doesn't make sense, like rpool/swap? what about rpool/dump? In most cases compression is not desireable. It consumes CPU and results in uneven system performance. IIRC there was a blog about I/O performance with ZFS stating that it was faster with compression ON as it didn't have to wait for so much data from the disks and that the CPU was fast at unpacking data. But sure, it uses more CPU (and probably memory). ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation
* Shannon Fiume (shannon.fi...@sun.com) wrote: Hi, I just installed 2009.06 and found that compression isn't enabled by default when filesystems are created. Does is make sense to have an RFE open for this? (I'll open one tonight if need be.) We keep telling people to turn on compression. Are there any situations where turning on compression doesn't make sense, like rpool/swap? what about rpool/dump? That would be enhancement request #86. http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=86 Cheers, -- Glenn ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:51:12 +0200 Thommy M. thommy.m.malmst...@gmail.com wrote: IIRC there was a blog about I/O performance with ZFS stating that it was faster with compression ON as it didn't have to wait for so much data from the disks and that the CPU was fast at unpacking data. But sure, it uses more CPU (and probably memory). IF at all, it certainly should not be the DEFAULT. Compression is a choice, nothing more. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] clones and sub-datasets
I had a zpool and was using the implicit zfs filesystem in it: data 10.2G 124G 8.53G /var/tellme d...@hotbackup.h2383.4M - 8.52G - d...@hotbackup.h0025.9M - 8.52G - d...@hotbackup.h0116.2M - 8.52G - ... These contained hourly zfs snapshots that I preferred to preserve. However, I was also trying to convert this to follow our standard naming, which meant that this filesystem should have been called data/var_tellme. I ran the following: # zfs snapshot d...@clean # zfs clone d...@clean data/var_tellme # zfs promote data/var_tellme This worked as expected and now I have: NAMEUSED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT data 9.70G 124G 8.53G legacy data/var_tellme9.70G 124G 8.10G legacy data/var_tel...@clean 717M - 8.53G - data/var_tel...@hotbackup.h14 24.4M - 8.09G - data/var_tel...@hotbackup.h15 10.0M - 8.09G - data/var_tel...@hotbackup.h16 6.14M - 8.09G - ... However, now I cannot remove the data/var_tel...@clean snapshot because it is now labelled as the 'origin' for data itself: # zfs get origin data NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE data origindata/var_tel...@clean - I don't care about the 'data' filesystem anymore, I just want to be able to nuke the data/var_tel...@clean snapshot so it doesn't end up filling my zpool with changes. Any thoughts on how this can be done? I do have other systems I can use to test this procedure, but ideally it would not introduce any downtime, but that can be arranged if necessary. Thanks, Todd ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?
Ive asked the same question about 32bit. I created a thread and asked. It were something like does 32bit ZFS fragments RAM? or something similar. As I remember it, 32 bit had some issues. Mostly due to RAM fragmentation or something similar. The result was that you had to restart your server after a while. But I shuts down my desktopPC every night so I never had any issues. -- 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] compression at zfs filesystem creation
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, dick hoogendijk wrote: IF at all, it certainly should not be the DEFAULT. Compression is a choice, nothing more. I respectfully disagree somewhat. Yes, compression shuould be a choice, but I think the default should be for it to be enabled. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Thommy M. wrote: In most cases compression is not desireable. It consumes CPU and results in uneven system performance. IIRC there was a blog about I/O performance with ZFS stating that it was faster with compression ON as it didn't have to wait for so much data from the disks and that the CPU was fast at unpacking data. But sure, it uses more CPU (and probably memory). I'll believe this when I see it. :-) With really slow disks and a fast CPU it is possible that reading data the first time is faster. However, Solaris is really good at caching data so any often-accessed data is highly likely to be cached and therefore read just one time. The main point of using compression for the root pool would be so that the OS can fit on an abnormally small device such as a FLASH disk. I would use it for a read-mostly device or an archive (backup) device. On desktop systems the influence of compression on desktop response is quite noticeable when writing, even with very fast CPUs and multiple cores. 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] compression at zfs filesystem creation
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: In most cases compression is not desireable. It consumes CPU and results in uneven system performance. You actually have that backwards. :-) In most cases, compression is very desirable. Performance studies have shown that today's CPUs can compress data faster than it takes for the uncompressed data to be read or written. That is, the time to read or write compressed data + the time to compress or decompress it is less than the time read or write the uncompressed data. Such is the difference between CPUs and I/O! You are correct that the compression/decompression uses CPU, but most systems have an abundance of CPU, especially when performing I/O. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, dick hoogendijk wrote: IF at all, it certainly should not be the DEFAULT. Compression is a choice, nothing more. I respectfully disagree somewhat. Yes, compression shuould be a choice, but I think the default should be for it to be enabled. I agree that Compression is a choice and would add : Compression is a choice and it is the default. Just my feelings on the issue. Dennis Clarke ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] compression at zfs filesystem creation
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rich Teer wrote: You actually have that backwards. :-) In most cases, compression is very desirable. Performance studies have shown that today's CPUs can compress data faster than it takes for the uncompressed data to be read or written. Do you have a reference for such an analysis based on ZFS? I would be interested in linear read/write performance rather than random access synchronous access. Perhaps you are going to make me test this for myself. You are correct that the compression/decompression uses CPU, but most systems have an abundance of CPU, especially when performing I/O. I assume that you are talking about single-user systems with little else to do? 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] zfs on 32 bit?
I had a 32 bit zfs server up for months with no such issue Performance is not great but it's no buggier than anything else. War stories from the initial zfs drops notwithstanding khb...@gmail.com | keith.bier...@quantum.com Sent from my iPod On Jun 15, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Orvar Korvar no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: Ive asked the same question about 32bit. I created a thread and asked. It were something like does 32bit ZFS fragments RAM? or something similar. As I remember it, 32 bit had some issues. Mostly due to RAM fragmentation or something similar. The result was that you had to restart your server after a while. But I shuts down my desktopPC every night so I never had any issues. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ 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 32 bit?
one of my disaster recovery servers has been running on 32bit hardware (ancient northwood chip) for about a year. the only problems i've run into are: slow (duh) and will not take disks that are bigger than 1tb. that is kind of a bummer and means i'll have to switch to a 64bit base soon. everything else has been fine. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Orvar Korvarno-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: According to this webpage, there are some errors that makes ZFS unusable under certain conditions. That is not really optimal for an Enterprise file system. In my opinion the ZFS team should focus on bug correction instead of adding new functionality. The functionality that exists far surpass any other file system, therefore it is better to fix bugs. In my opinion. Read those error reports and complaints and data corruption: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS Slashdot? 'cmon, Orvar... You've found the resource reference to, LOL. Try to say in Slashdot something really reasonable, like that GNOME (GUI No One Might Enjoy) actually sucks in its integration and is still horrible on small resolutions (e.g. you get OK/Cancel off the screen on a netbooks) and you will be an enemy of the whole world. And if you say that the latest KDE (Kids Desktop Environment) is actually even more terrible than Windows 95 — you're just simply dead. :-) Personally, I tried to get scared on ZFS, but all the time when yet another slashdotter (read: teenager) screams about dramatical data loss, I am unable to reproduce the problem. Thus I think it would be much better to the community if we actually find a real step-by-step reproducible crashes (VirtualBox is our friend here), fill a real bug reports and then it would be much more reasonable to speak about a particular case, rather then spreading out stupid FUD, taken from a useless slashdot commenters. P.S. I mean, let's don't waste our time on slashdot and let's find something actually bad, reproduce, fill a bug and then report here. :-) -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import hangs
Hi Victor, 'zdb -e -bcsv -t 2435913 tank' ran for about a week with no output. We had yet another brown out and then the comp shut down (have a UPS on the way). A few days before that I started the following commands, which also had no output: zdb -e -bcsv -t 2435911 tank zdb -e -bcsv -t 2435897 tank I've given up on these because I don't think they'll finish...should I try again? Right now I am trying the following commands which so far have no output: zdb -e -bcsvL -t 2435913 tank zdb -e -bsvL -t 2435913 tank zdb -e -bb -t 2435913 tank 'zdb -e - -t 2435913 tank' has output and is very long...is there anything I should be looking for? Without -t 243... this command failed on dmu_read, now it just keeps going forever. Your help is much appreciated. Thanks, Brad -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
