Re: [zfs-discuss] Mirroring USB Drive with Laptop for Backup purposes
On May 12, 2010, at 3:23 AM, Brandon High wrote: On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Richard Elling > wrote: But who needs usability? This is unix, man. I must have missed something. For the past few years I have routinely booted with unimportable pools because I often use ramdisks. Sure, I get FMA messages, but that doesn't affect the boot. OTOH, I don't try to "backup" using mirrors. (..) If it was possible to pass in a flag from grub to ignore the cache, it would make life a little easier in such cases. Recently I have been working on a zpool that refuses to import. During my work I had to boot the server many times in failsafe mode to be able to remove the zpool.cache file, so Brandon's suggestions sounds very reasonable at first. However, I realized that if you import using "zpool import -R /altroot your_pool" -- it does NOT create a new zpool.cache. So, as long as you use -R, you can safely import pools without creating a new zpool.cache file and your next reboot will not screw up the system. Basically there's no real need to a grub option (actually for a kernel parameter) -- if you have a problem, you go failsafe mode and remove the file, then in your tests you attempt to import using -R so the cache is not re-created and you don't need to go into failsafe mode ever again. best regards, Eduardo Bragatto. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mirroring USB Drive with Laptop for Backup purposes
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Richard Elling wrote: >> But who needs usability? This is unix, man. > > I must have missed something. For the past few years I have routinely > booted with unimportable pools because I often use ramdisks. Sure, > I get FMA messages, but that doesn't affect the boot. OTOH, I don't try > to "backup" using mirrors. If you boot from usb and move your rpool from one port to another, you can't boot. If you plug your boot sata drive into a different port on the motherboard, you can't boot. Apparently if you are missing a device from your rpool mirror, you can't boot. I haven't tried booting in single user mode in any of these cases because it's been easier to undo the change. If it was possible to pass in a flag from grub to ignore the cache, it would make life a little easier in such cases. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mirroring USB Drive with Laptop for Backup purposes
On 12 maj 2010, at 05.31, Brandon High wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Richard Elling > wrote: >> boot single user and mv it (just like we've done for fstab/vfstab for >> the past 30+ years :-) > > It would be nice to have a grub menu item that ignores the cache, so > if you know you've removed a USB drive, you don't need to muck about > in single user then reboot again. > > But who needs usability? This is unix, man. But that shouldn't ever be needed, except in this case where there is a bug, should it? Implementing options to work around every thinkable bug would be an interesting problem, but I believe the problem is to hard to be solved in reasonable time. /ragge ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mirroring USB Drive with Laptop for Backup purposes
On 10 maj 2010, at 20.04, Miles Nordin wrote: >> "bh" == Brandon High writes: > >bh> The drive should be on the same USB port because the device >bh> path is saved in the zpool.cache. If you removed the >bh> zpool.cache, it wouldn't matter where the drive was plugged >bh> in. > > I thought it was supposed to go by devid. > > There was a bug a while ago that Solaris won't calculate devid for > devices that say over SCSI they are ``removeable'' because, in the > sense that a DynaMO or DVD-R is ``removeable'', the serial number > returned by various identity commands or mode pages isn't bound to any > set of stored bits, and the way devid's are used throughout Solaris > means they are like a namespace or an array-of for a set of bit-stores > so it's not appropriate for a DVD-R drive to have a devid. A DVD disc > could have one, though---in fact a release of a pressed disc could > appropriately have a non-serialized devid. However USB stick > designers used to working with Microsoft don't bother to think through > how the SCSI architecture should work in a sane world because they are > used to reading chatty-idiot Microsoft manuals, so they fill out the > page like a beaurocratic form with whatever feels appropriate and mark > USB sticks ``removeable'', which according to the standard and to a > sane implementer is a warning that the virtual SCSI disk attached to > the virtual SCSI host adapter inside the USB pod might be soldered to > removeable FLASH chips. It's quite stupid because before the OS has > even determined what kind of USB device is plugged in, it already > knows the device is removeable in that sense, just like it knows > hot-swap SATA is removeable. USB is no more removeable, even in > practical use, than SATA. (eSATA! *slap*) Even in the case of CF > readers, it's probably wrong most of the time to set the removeable > SCSI flag because the connection that's severable is between the > virtual SCSI adapter in the ``reader'' and the virtual SCSI disk in > the CF/SD/... card, while the removeable flag indicates severability > between SCSI disk and storage medium. In the CF/SD/... reader case > the serial number in the IDENTIFY command or mode pages will come from > CF/SD/... and remain bound to the bits. The only case that might call > for setting the bit is where the adapter is synthesizing a fake mode > page where the removeable bit appears, but even then the bit should be > clear so long as any serialized fields in other commands and mode > pages are still serialized somehow (whether synthesized or not). > Actual removeable in-the-scsi-standard's-sense HARD DISK drives mostly > don't exist, and real removeable things in the real world attach as > optical where an understanding of their removeability is embedded in > the driver: ANYTHING the cd driver attaches will be treated > removeable. > > consequently the bit is useless to the way solaris is using it, and > does little more than break USB support in ways like this, but the > developers refuse to let go of their dreams about what the bit was > supposed to mean even though a flood of reality has guaranteed at this > point their dream will never come true. I think there was some > magical simon-sez flag they added to /kernel/drv/whatever.conf so the > bug could be closed, so you might go hunting for that flag in which > they will surely want you to encode in a baroque case-sensitive > undocumented notation that ``The Microtraveler model 477217045 serial > 80502813 attached to driver/hub/hub/port/function has a LYING > REMOVEABLE FLAG'', but maybe you can somehow set it to '*' and rejoin > reality. Still this won't help you on livecd's. It's probably wiser > to walk away from USB unless/until there's a serious will to adopt the > practical mindset needed to support it reasonably. I'm sorry if I am slow, but I don't get it; Whys isn't devid calculated for removable devices? What does the serial number has to do with devid? /ragge ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Unexpected rpool mirror behavior found during testing
On 05/12/10 02:10 PM, Terence Tan wrote: I was having quite a bit of problems getting the rpool mirroring to work as expected. This appears to be a known issue, see the thread "b134 - Mirrored rpool won't boot unless both mirrors are present" and http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6923585 -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opteron 6100? Does it work with opensolaris?
On Behalf Of James C. McPherson >Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:41 PM > >On 12/05/10 10:32 AM, Michael DeMan wrote: >> I agree on the motherboard and peripheral chipset issue. >> >> This, and the last generation AMD quad/six core motherboards > > all seem to use the AMD SP56x0/SP5100 chipset, which I can't > find much >information about support on for either OpenSolaris or FreeBSD. > >If you can get the device driver detection utility to run on it, that will give you a >reasonable idea. > >> Another issue is the LSI SAS2008 chipset for SAS controller > > which is frequently offered as an onboard option for many motherboards > as >well and still seems to be somewhat of a work in progress in > regards to being >'production ready'. > >What metric are you using for "production ready" ? >Are there features missing which you expect to see in the driver, or is it just "oh >noes, I haven't seen enough big customers with it" ? > > I have been wondering what the compatibility is like on OpenSolaris. My perception is basic network driver support is decent, but storage controllers are more difficult for driver support. My perception is if you are using external cards which you know work for networking and storage, then you should be alright. Am I out in left-field on this? Thanks, Geoff ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS High Availability
I'm looking for input on building an HA configuration for ZFS. I've read the FAQ and understand that the standard approach is to have a standby system with access to a shared pool that is imported during a failover. The problem is that we use ZFS for a specialized purpose that results in 10's of thousands of filesystems (mostly snapshots and clones). All versions of Solaris and OpenSolaris that we've tested take a long time (> hour) to import that many filesystems. I've read about replication through AVS, but that also seems require an import during failover. We'd need something closer to an active-active configuration (even if the second active is only modified through replication). Or some way to greatly speedup imports. Any suggestions? -- 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] Mirroring USB Drive with Laptop for Backup purposes
On May 11, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Brandon High wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Richard Elling > wrote: >> boot single user and mv it (just like we've done for fstab/vfstab for >> the past 30+ years :-) > > It would be nice to have a grub menu item that ignores the cache, so > if you know you've removed a USB drive, you don't need to muck about > in single user then reboot again. > > But who needs usability? This is unix, man. I must have missed something. For the past few years I have routinely booted with unimportable pools because I often use ramdisks. Sure, I get FMA messages, but that doesn't affect the boot. OTOH, I don't try to "backup" using mirrors. -- richard -- ZFS storage and performance consulting at http://www.RichardElling.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mirroring USB Drive with Laptop for Backup purposes
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > boot single user and mv it (just like we've done for fstab/vfstab for > the past 30+ years :-) It would be nice to have a grub menu item that ignores the cache, so if you know you've removed a USB drive, you don't need to muck about in single user then reboot again. But who needs usability? This is unix, man. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Broadening of ZFS open source license
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey > > I'm no expert in this subject, but I do feel confident in my knowledge > that > the license conflict is just one of many obstacles to prevent ZFS from > working nicely in Linux. Then again, if you'd like a more authoritative answer, you might just go ask the Linux kernel development list, "Why don't you guys use ZFS?" And Linus might reply with some overly generalized derogatory statements intermingled with cuss words and unnecessary offenses, such as he does when talking about git vs svn, or ext3 (dump) vs ... having no backups, er something ... he never offered any suggestion on anything to use aside from dump after ripping dump apart. And then people will act like God spoke to them, and many stones will be carved. People who are looking for answers will get bad answers and further confusion, and people who just know enough to follow unquestioningly will become minions and activists, and people who are truly experts will keep their thoughts silent, and slowly randomly perform a little bit of damage control before moving on. Heheheh BTW, I had the pleasure of listening to Linus talk about (aka unintelligently rant about) svn. And it was absolutely worthless except for entertainment. Quite a religious person, no doubt about that. Good luck getting him to help ZFS into the kernel. ;-) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mirroring USB Drive with Laptop for Backup purposes
On May 11, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Brandon High wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Miles Nordin wrote: >>> "bh" == Brandon High writes: >>bh> The drive should be on the same USB port because the device >>bh> path is saved in the zpool.cache. If you removed the >> >> I thought it was supposed to go by devid. > > zpool.cache saves the device path to make importing pools faster. It > would be nice if there was a boot flag you could give it to ignore the > file... boot single user and mv it (just like we've done for fstab/vfstab for the past 30+ years :-) > zdb -C shows the contents of zpool.cache. It's got guid, path, devid, > phys_path and other info in it. yep. -- richard -- ZFS storage and performance consulting at http://www.RichardElling.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Broadening of ZFS open source license
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Hillel Lubman > > Oracle (together with RedHat) contributes a bulk part of BTRFS > development. Given that ZFS and BTRFS both share many similar goals, > wouldn't it be reasonable for Oracle to license ZFS under wider range > of FOSS licenses I'm no expert in this subject, but I do feel confident in my knowledge that the license conflict is just one of many obstacles to prevent ZFS from working nicely in Linux. The license issue is not insurmountable, and many reasonable solutions could possibly be created (two that I know of ... Either compile the ZFS code separately from the kernel, and link it in dynamically, which would require something like LILO to statically map hard drive sectors to load the modules at boot time, assuming you want your OS boot pool to be ZFS. Or compile or translate the ZFS code and distribute the binaries or translated code under a different license which is compatible with GPL.) The license issue is just one of many obstacles. Like ... in Linux, you've got a filesystem layer, which is just filesystems. They interact with a device layer, which knows nothing of filesystems. Throw in some software raid, and a separation of kernel space from user space... All of a sudden, if you think about building ZFS for Linux, you're stepping on a lot of toes, and violating a lot of the culture of the Linux kernel developers. They're a bunch of disperse programmers, who, in order to keep organized, must compartmentalize and modularize themselves. Unlike the ZFS developers, who almost all work under one roof (er ... company name.) The Linux guys don't like some big thing coming along, crossing over between kernel and userspace, undoing everything they've ever done, all being developed by one big company that they can't boss around. I don't know if you noticed that GPL is very much anti-corporation, or anti-commercial. They're more comfortable with just another filesystem, similar to all the other filesystems they've had in the past, with the notable support for copy on write. IMHO, one of the best benefits of ZFS (besides the obvious copy on write) is the fact that the RAID layer (if I may use that term) has intimate knowledge of both the block-level devices, and the filesystem. Which means ZFS is able to aggregate many small writes to separate sectors of separate files, and intelligently map all the filesystem blocks to consecutive physical blocks (or striped physical blocks), which means they're all consolidated into one large sequential write. This is a huge performance gain, for both small random operations and/or large sequential operations. I don't know if BTRFS is going to be able to do this sort of stuff, given the isolation from the RAID layer. I think BTRFS is just going to give Linux users snapshots, and block-level incremental backups. To gain the performance benefits, it necessitates erasing the separation between filesystem and block-level (raid) code. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opteron 6100? Does it work with opensolaris?
Well i went ahead and ordered the board. I will report back soon with the results..i'm pretty excited. These CPU's seem great on paper. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote: > the onboard sata is a secondary issue. If i need to, i'll boot from the > oboard usb slots. I have 2 LSI 1068e based sas controllers which i will be > using. > > > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:40 PM, James C. McPherson > wrote: > >> On 12/05/10 10:32 AM, Michael DeMan wrote: >> >>> I agree on the motherboard and peripheral chipset issue. >>> >>> This, and the last generation AMD quad/six core motherboards >>> >> > all seem to use the AMD SP56x0/SP5100 chipset, which I can't >> > find much information about support on for either OpenSolaris or >> FreeBSD. >> >> If you can get the device driver detection utility to run >> on it, that will give you a reasonable idea. >> >> >> Another issue is the LSI SAS2008 chipset for SAS controller >>> >> > which is frequently offered as an onboard option for many motherboards >> > as well and still seems to be somewhat of a work in progress in >> > regards to being 'production ready'. >> >> What metric are you using for "production ready" ? >> Are there features missing which you expect to see >> in the driver, or is it just "oh noes, I haven't >> seen enough big customers with it" ? >> >> >> James C. McPherson >> -- >> Senior Software Engineer, Solaris >> Oracle >> http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog >> >> ___ >> 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] Unexpected rpool mirror behavior found during testing
I was having quite a bit of problems getting the rpool mirroring to work as expected. The issue I have is not about the how to create mirror rpool. I got sufficient information from the various good people in the internet to do this correctly. I am not sure the specific I have here is related to my hardware or if this is a software bug. For those who are in the know, please enlighten me. Here is a quick ran down of the machine that I used for testing before I described my test cases. a. Motherboard AMD: M4A78T-E (16G ECC, Phenom X4) b. 4 SATA drive (WD 500G RE3) c. Drive connected to onboard SATA controller using AHCI (not IDE). c. Opensolaris Build 134 Test cases == Simple Tests 1. Install OS build 134 into the SATA drive (no mirror). Move the SATA drive using the various on board SATA connectors and the system come up fine (with BIOS set correctly for booting). Final status: Good worked as expected 2. Mirror the OS to the another drive, and then move the the mirrors drives to any of the SATA port, and the system come up fine as long as _both_ drive was plugged into SATA connector. Final status: Good worked as expected. Fail over tests - 3. Cold start the system without one of the mirror drives by pulling it out from the hot-plug drive bay (does not matter which one). The system will fail to boot up completely. The active mirror drive GRUB does works and it was able to get into the Opensolaris splash screen. The system jpwever will remain on this splash screen with the progress status bar continue to move from side to side. Looking at the console log indicated that the boot process did not move beyond the Hostname: os01 (where os01 is the hostname of my box). I have waited for > 20 min for and the boot up will still not complete. I have verified that the boot issue is not due to incorrect BIOS bootup ordering just in case your are wondering (I have checked this numerous time). *If I break the mirror, the active disk will have no problem starting up the OS. I can reattach the mirror and then reset to use the drive *It looks like ZFS rpool is having problem doing fail-over to another drive in a mirror setup. It looks like software bug to me but it equally hard for me to believe that ZFS did not get this basic thing right. Did any one get the rpool mirror drive fail-over (in particular SATA drive) to work correctly. I sure like to know how did you get it all working! I can ditch the build-in SATA controller or the motherboard if hardware/BIOS is the issue but I want to be sure I am doing the right thing. 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] Opteron 6100? Does it work with opensolaris?
the onboard sata is a secondary issue. If i need to, i'll boot from the oboard usb slots. I have 2 LSI 1068e based sas controllers which i will be using. On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:40 PM, James C. McPherson wrote: > On 12/05/10 10:32 AM, Michael DeMan wrote: > >> I agree on the motherboard and peripheral chipset issue. >> >> This, and the last generation AMD quad/six core motherboards >> > > all seem to use the AMD SP56x0/SP5100 chipset, which I can't > > find much information about support on for either OpenSolaris or FreeBSD. > > If you can get the device driver detection utility to run > on it, that will give you a reasonable idea. > > > Another issue is the LSI SAS2008 chipset for SAS controller >> > > which is frequently offered as an onboard option for many motherboards > > as well and still seems to be somewhat of a work in progress in > > regards to being 'production ready'. > > What metric are you using for "production ready" ? > Are there features missing which you expect to see > in the driver, or is it just "oh noes, I haven't > seen enough big customers with it" ? > > > James C. McPherson > -- > Senior Software Engineer, Solaris > Oracle > http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog > > ___ > 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] Opteron 6100? Does it work with opensolaris?
On 12/05/10 10:32 AM, Michael DeMan wrote: I agree on the motherboard and peripheral chipset issue. This, and the last generation AMD quad/six core motherboards > all seem to use the AMD SP56x0/SP5100 chipset, which I can't > find much information about support on for either OpenSolaris or FreeBSD. If you can get the device driver detection utility to run on it, that will give you a reasonable idea. Another issue is the LSI SAS2008 chipset for SAS controller > which is frequently offered as an onboard option for many motherboards > as well and still seems to be somewhat of a work in progress in > regards to being 'production ready'. What metric are you using for "production ready" ? Are there features missing which you expect to see in the driver, or is it just "oh noes, I haven't seen enough big customers with it" ? James C. McPherson -- Senior Software Engineer, Solaris Oracle http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opteron 6100? Does it work with opensolaris?
I agree on the motherboard and peripheral chipset issue. This, and the last generation AMD quad/six core motherboards all seem to use the AMD SP56x0/SP5100 chipset, which I can't find much information about support on for either OpenSolaris or FreeBSD. Another issue is the LSI SAS2008 chipset for SAS controller which is frequently offered as an onboard option for many motherboards as well and still seems to be somewhat of a work in progress in regards to being 'production ready'. On May 11, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Brandon High wrote: > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote: >> I'm specificially looking at this motherboard: >> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182230 > > I'd be more concerned that the motherboard and it's attached > peripherals are unsupported than the processor. Solaris can handle 12 > cores with no problems. > > -B > > -- > Brandon High : bh...@freaks.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] Opteron 6100? Does it work with opensolaris?
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote: > I'm specificially looking at this motherboard: > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182230 I'd be more concerned that the motherboard and it's attached peripherals are unsupported than the processor. Solaris can handle 12 cores with no problems. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mirroring USB Drive with Laptop for Backup purposes
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Miles Nordin wrote: >> "bh" == Brandon High writes: > bh> The drive should be on the same USB port because the device > bh> path is saved in the zpool.cache. If you removed the > > I thought it was supposed to go by devid. zpool.cache saves the device path to make importing pools faster. It would be nice if there was a boot flag you could give it to ignore the file... zdb -C shows the contents of zpool.cache. It's got guid, path, devid, phys_path and other info in it. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Broadening of ZFS open source license
On May 11, 2010, at 10:29 PM, Hillel Lubman wrote: > In the article about MeeGo: > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/387196/103bbafc9266fd0d/ it is stated, that > Oracle (together with RedHat) contributes a bulk part of BTRFS development. > Given that ZFS and BTRFS both share many similar goals, wouldn't it be > reasonable for Oracle to license ZFS under wider range of FOSS licenses > (similar to how Mozilla released their code under triple license, since MPL > is incomatible with GPL)? Is there any movement in that direction (or the > solid intention not to do so?). I don't think so, not in the short run at least. Oracle has a edge over the competition with Solaris that also is the primary platform for ZFS development, they control Solaris and can used it in their advantage. Why give it away to the competition and incorporate ZFS it into a OS they does not control? Oracle knows how to make money and I don't think broadening the license for ZFS is going to do that in a near future. Henrik http://sparcv9.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Broadening of ZFS open source license
In the article about MeeGo: http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/387196/103bbafc9266fd0d/ it is stated, that Oracle (together with RedHat) contributes a bulk part of BTRFS development. Given that ZFS and BTRFS both share many similar goals, wouldn't it be reasonable for Oracle to license ZFS under wider range of FOSS licenses (similar to how Mozilla released their code under triple license, since MPL is incomatible with GPL)? Is there any movement in that direction (or the solid intention not to do so?). Thanks, Hillel. -- 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] Storage 7410 Flush ARC for filebench
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:55:08PM +0530, Johnson Thomas wrote: > Customer has this query > "If there is a way to flush ARC for filebench runs without rebooting > the system" > > He is running firmware 2010.02.09.0.2,1-1.13 on the NAS 7410 In the pre-ZFS world I would have suggested unmounting the filesystem between runs. With ZFS, I doubt that is sufficient. I would suppose a zpool export/import might be enough, but I'd want to test that as well. -- Darren ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Comstar iSCSI BLK size
>-Original Message- >From: Brandon High [mailto:bh...@freaks.com] >Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 5:56 PM > >On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Geoff Nordli wrote: >> Doesn't this alignment have more to do with aligning writes to the >> stripe/segment size of a traditional storage array? The articles I am > >It is a lot like a stripe / segment size. If you want to think of it in those terms, >you've got a segment of 512b (the iscsi block size) and a width of 16, giving you >an 8k stripe size. Any write that is less than 8k will require a RMW cycle, and any >write in multiples of 8k will do "full stripe" writes. If the write doesn't start on an >8k boundary, you risk having writes span multiple underlying zvol blocks. > > >When using a zvol, you've essentially got $volblocksize sized physical sectors, but >the initiator sees the 512b block size that the LUN is reporting. If you don't block >align, you risk having a write straddle two zfs blocks. There may be some benefit >to using a 4k volblocksize, but you'll use more time and space on block checksums >and, etc in your zpool. I think 8k is a reasonable trade off. > > >If you're using the whole disk with zfs, you don't need to worry about it. If you're >using fdisk partitions or slices, you need be a little more careful. > So... as long as you use whole disks, set the volblocksize to a multiple of the virtual machines file system allocation size, then you don't have to worry about alignment/optimization with ZFS. Thanks again!! Geoff ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Storage 7410 Flush ARC for filebench
Hi Experts, Need assistance on this Customer has this query "If there is a way to flush ARC for filebench runs without rebooting the system" He is running firmware 2010.02.09.0.2,1-1.13 on the NAS 7410 Please cc me also in the reply regards -- Johnson Thomas Technical Support Engineer Sun Solution Centre- APAC Global Customer Services, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Email- johnson.tho...@sun.com Toll Free /Hotline: Australia:1800 555 786 New Zealand:0800 275 786 Singapore:1800 339 2786 India:1600 425 4786 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Plugging in a hard drive after Solaris has booted up?
giova...@server:~# cfgadm Ap_Id Type Receptacle Occupant Condition sata1/0disk connectedunconfigured unknown sata1/1::dsk/c8t1d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata1/2sata-portemptyunconfigured ok sata1/3::dsk/c8t3d0disk connectedconfigured ok sata1/4disk connectedunconfigured unknown sata1/5::dsk/c8t5d0disk connectedconfigured ok usb5/1 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb5/2 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb6/1 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb6/2 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb7/1 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb7/2 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb8/1 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb8/2 usb-cdromconnectedconfigured ok usb8/3 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb8/4 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb8/5 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb8/6 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb9/1 usb-hub connectedconfigured ok usb9/1.1 usb-device connectedconfigured ok usb9/1.2 usb-device connectedconfigured ok usb9/1.3 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb9/1.4 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb9/2 unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb10/1unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb10/2unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb11/1unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb11/2unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb12/1unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb12/2unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb12/3unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb12/4unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb12/5unknown emptyunconfigured ok usb12/6unknown emptyunconfigured ok giova...@server:~# Shows unconfigured, but I do not know what to do next to bring them online or set them back as "configured" any help is appreciated. Thanks On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 05/ 8/10 04:38 PM, Giovanni wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I have a quick question, I am playing around with ZFS and here's what I >> did. >> >> I created a storage pool with several drives. I unplugged 3 out of 5 >> drives from the array, currently: >> >>NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM >>gpool UNAVAIL 0 0 0 insufficient replicas >> raidz1UNAVAIL 0 0 0 insufficient replicas >>c8t2d0 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open >>c8t4d0 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open >>c8t0d0 UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open >> >> These drives had power all the time, the SATA cable however was >> disconnected. Now, after I logged into Solaris and opened firefox, I plugged >> them back in to sit and watch if the storage pool suddenly becomes >> "available" >> >> This did not happen, so my question is, do I need to make Solaris >> re-detect the hard drives and if so how? I tried format -e but it did not >> seem to detect the 3 drives I just plugged back in. Is this a BIOS issue? >> >> >> > Assuming hot-swap is supported on your system, what does cfgadm report? > > -- > Ian. > > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opteron 6100? Does it work with opensolaris?
- "Thomas Burgess" skrev: I was looking at building a new ZFS based server for my media files and i was wondering if this cpu was supported...i googled and i coudlnt' find much info about it. I'm specificially looking at this motherboard: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182230 I'd hate to buy it and find out it doesn't work. AFAIK this is just yet another Opteron, only with a bunch more of cores ... roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Opteron 6100? Does it work with opensolaris?
I was looking at building a new ZFS based server for my media files and i was wondering if this cpu was supported...i googled and i coudlnt' find much info about it. I'm specificially looking at this motherboard: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813182230 I'd hate to buy it and find out it doesn't work. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hashing files rapidly on ZFS
Is there a O(nb_blocks_for_the_file) solution, then? I know O(nb_blocks_for_the_file) == O(nb_bytes_in_the_file), from Mr. Landau's POV, but I'm quite interested in a good constant factor. -- 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] Hashing files rapidly on ZFS
On 11/05/2010 11:14, Bertrand Augereau wrote: Hello everybody, is there a way to compute very quickly some hash of a file in a zfs? As I understand it, everything is signed in the filesystem, so I'm wondering if I can avoid reading whole files with md5sum just to get a unique hash. Seems very redundant to me :) Signing implies use of a key which ZFS does not use for its block based checksums. There is no "quick" way to do this just now because ZFS checksums are block based not whole file based. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Hashing files rapidly on ZFS
Hello everybody, is there a way to compute very quickly some hash of a file in a zfs? As I understand it, everything is signed in the filesystem, so I'm wondering if I can avoid reading whole files with md5sum just to get a unique hash. Seems very redundant to me :) Bottom line is I want to make manual deduplication at the file level. Thanks in advance, Bertrand -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
