Re: [zfs-discuss] Data transfer taking a longer time than expected (Possibly dedup related)
The article would probably be correct. In my experience, and looking at the archives for other posts, dedup really needs the RAM and preferably L2ARC device as well. As someone else put it, home servers need not apply. I would point out the very slow dataset destroy caveat depending on which build you are using. At least until and including b134 destroying a dataset that had at some point dedup turned on, with low memory, results in _very_ lengthy operation. And prepare to give it a long time (days?). If you absolutely must shut down the system during it, the next restart will be painfully slow (think week or so). There has been few posts about this, including mine. I might be mistaken but someone explained it might have been due to the dataset destroy operation running along with resilver. -V From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tom Sent: 25 September 2010 04:40 To: David Blasingame Oracle Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Data transfer taking a longer time than expected (Possibly dedup related) Thanks a lot for that. I'm not experienced in reading the output of dtrace, but I'm pretty sure that dedup was the cause here, as I disabling it during the transfer, immediately raised the transfer speed to ~100MB/s. Thanks for the article you linked to it seems my system would need about 16GB RAM for dedup to work smoothly in my case... On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:10 PM, David Blasingame Oracle david.blasing...@oracle.com wrote: How do you know it is dedup causing the problem? You can check to see how much is by looking at the threads (look for ddt) mdb -k ::threadlist -v or dtrace it. fbt:zfs:ddt*:entry You can disable dedup. I believe current dedup data stays until it gets over written. I'm not sure what send would do, but I would assume the new filesystem if dedup is not enabled would not have dedup'd data. You might also want to read. http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/dedup_performance_considerations1 As far as the impact of ctrl-c on a move operation, When I do a test to move a file from one file system to another an ctrl-c the operation, the file is intact on the original filesystem and on the new filesystem it is partial. So you would have to be careful about which data has already been copied. Dave On 09/24/10 14:34, Thomas S. wrote: Hi all I'm currently moving a fairly big dataset (~2TB) within the same zpool. Data is being moved from a dataset to another, which has dedup enabled. The transfer started at quite a slow transfer speed maybe 12MB/s. But it is now crawling to a near halt. Only 800GB has been moved in 48 hours. I looked for similar problems on the forums and other places, and it seems dedup needs a much bigger amount of RAM than the server currently has (3GB), to perform smoothly for such an operation. My question is, how can I gracefully stop the ongoing operation? What I did was simply mv temp/* new/ in an ssh session (which is still open). Can I disable dedup on the dataset while the transfer is going on? Can I simply Ctrl-C the procress to stop it? Shoul I be careful of anything? Help would be appreciated -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Can I upgrade a striped pool of vdevs to mirrored vdevs?
Hi, once I created a zpool of single vdevs not using mirroring of any kind. Now I wonder if it's possible to add vdevs and mirror the currently existing ones. Thanks, budy -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Any way for snapshot zpool with RAIDZ or for independent devices
Hi, With recent additions, using zpool split I could split a mirrored zpool and create new pool with the given name. Is there any direct or indirect mechanism where I can create snapshot of devices under a existing zpool where new devices are created so that I can recreate stack (new zpool and all file systems) without modifying the data. So that with new stack i can able to access consistent (snapshot ) data (which is same as data present on original when backup took) with the new stack created. Thanks Regards, sridhar. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] hot spare remains in use
Hi, I had a hot spare used to replace a failed drive, but then the drive appears to be fine anyway. After clearing the error it shows that the drive was resilvered, but keeps the spare in use. zpool status pool2 pool: pool2 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM pool2 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t9d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t10d0ONLINE 0 0 0 spare ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t11d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t22d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t12d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t13d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t14d0ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c10t22d0 INUSE currently in use errors: No known data errors How can I get the spare out of the pool? Thanks, Brian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] hot spare remains in use
Hi Brian, You could manually detach the spare, like this: # zpool detach pool2 c10t22d0 Sometimes, you might need to clear the pool error but I don't see any residual errors in this output: # zpool clear pool2 I would use fmdump -eV to see what's going with c10t11d0. Thanks, Cindy On 10/04/10 07:47, Brian Kolaci wrote: Hi, I had a hot spare used to replace a failed drive, but then the drive appears to be fine anyway. After clearing the error it shows that the drive was resilvered, but keeps the spare in use. zpool status pool2 pool: pool2 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM pool2 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t9d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t10d0ONLINE 0 0 0 spare ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t11d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t22d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t12d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t13d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t14d0ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c10t22d0 INUSE currently in use errors: No known data errors How can I get the spare out of the pool? Thanks, Brian ___ 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] Can I upgrade a striped pool of vdevs to mirrored vdevs?
On 04/10/2010 15:24, Stephan Budach wrote: once I created a zpool of single vdevs not using mirroring of any kind. Now I wonder if it's possible to add vdevs and mirror the currently existing ones. Yes. zpool attach pool existing_device new_device Do that for each of the vdev devices you are mirroring. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] tagged ACL groups: let's just keep digging until we come out the other side
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:14:24PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from Windows?
no, not under my proposal.
Let's give it a whirld anyways:
but it sounds like currently people cannot ``fix'' permissions through
the quirky autotranslation anyway, certainly not to the point where
neither unix nor windows users are confused: windows users are always
confused, and unix users don't get to see all the permissions.
No, that's not right. Today you can fix permissions from any NFSv4
client that exports an NFSv4-style ACL interface to users. You can fix
permissions from Windows. You can fix permissions a local Solaris
shell. You can also fix permissions from NFSv3 clients (but you get
POSIX Draft - ZFS translated ACLs, which are confusing because they
tend to result in DENY ACEs being scattered all over). You can also
chmod, but you lose your ACL if you do that.
Now what?
set the unix perms to 777 as a sign to the unix people to either (a)
leave it alone, or (b) learn to use 'chmod A...'. This will actually
work: it's not a hand-waving hypothetical that just doesn't play out.
I would think that 777 would invite chmods. I think you are handwaving.
What I provide, which we don't have now, is a way to make:
/tub/dataset/a subtree
-rwxrwxrwxin old unix
[working, changeable permissions] in windows
/tub/dataset/b subtree
-rw-r--r--in old unix
[everything: everyone]in windows, but unix permissions
still enforced
this means:
* unix writers and windows writers can cooperate even within a single
dataset
* an intuitive warning sign when non-native permissions are in effect,
* fewer leaked-data surprises
I don't understand what exactly you're proposing. You've not said
anything about how chmod is to be handled.
If you accept that the autotranslation between the two permissions
regimes is total shit, which it is, then what I offer is the best oyu
can hope for.
If I could understand what you're proposing I might agree, who knows.
But I do think there's other possibilities, some probably better than
what you propose (whatever that is).
Here's a crazy alternative that might work (or not): allow users to
pre-configure named ACLs where the names are {owner, group, mode}.
E.g., we could have:
.zfs/ACLs/user/[group:][d|-]permissions[.inherit]
^ ^^^ ^
|| |
+-- owned by | |
user +-- applies to |
directory |
or other|
objects |
|
see below
When chmod()ing an object... ZFS would search for the most specific
matching file in .zfs/ACLs/ and, if found, would replace the chmod()ed
object's ACL with that of the .zfs/ACLs/... file found. The .inherit
suffix would indicate that if the chmod() target's parent directory has
inherittable ACEs then they will be groupmasked and added to the ACEs
from the .zfs/ACLs/... file to produce a final ACL.
E.g., a chmod(0644) of /a/b/c/foo (say, a file owned by 'joe' with group
'staff', with /, /a, /a/b, and /a/b/c all being datasets), where c has
inherittable ACEs would cause ZFS to search for
.zfs/ACLs/joe/staff:-rw-r--r--.inherit, .zfs/ACLs/joe/-rw-r--r--.inherit,
zfs/ACLs/joe/staff:-rw-r--r--, and .zfs/ACLs/joe/-rw-r--r--, first in
/a/b/c, then /a/b, then /a, then /.
I said this is crazy. Is it? I think it probably is. This would
almost certainly prove to be a hard-to-use design. Users would need to
be educated in order to not be surprised... OTOH, it puts much more
control in the hands of the user. These named ACLs could be inheritted
from parent datasets as a way to avoid having to set them up too many
times. And with the .inherit twist it probably has enough granularity
of control to be useful (particularly if users are dataset-happy).
Finally, these could even be managed remotely.
I see zero chance of such a design being adopted.
It'd be better, IMO, to go for non-POSIX-equivalent groupmasking and
translations of POSIX mode_t and POSIX Draft ACLs to ZFS ACLs. For
example: take the current translations, remove all owner@ and group DENY
ACEs, then sort any remaining user DENY ACEs to be first, and any
everyone@ DENY ACEs to be last. The results would surely be surprising
to some users, but the kinds of mode_t and POSIX Draft ACLs where
surprise is likely are rare.
That's two alternatives right there.
Nico
--
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I upgrade a striped pool of vdevs to mirrored vdevs?
Hi Darren, gee, thanks. Of course the would be a resilver due for each vdev, but that shouldn't harm, although the vdevs are quite big. Thanks, budy -- 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] Can I upgrade a striped pool of vdevs to mirrored vdevs?
Hi-- Yes, you would use the zpool attach command to convert a non-redundant configuration into a mirrored pool configuration. http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gcfhe?l=ena=view See: Example 4–6 Converting a Nonredundant ZFS Storage Pool to a Mirrored ZFS Storage Pool If you have more than one device in the pool, you would continue to attach a new disk to each existing device, like this: # zpool status test pool: test state: ONLINE scan: resilvered 85.5K in 0h0m with 0 errors on Mon Oct 4 08:44:35 2010 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM testONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 # zpool attach test c3t1d0 c4t1d0 # zpool attach test c3t2d0 c4t2d0 # zpool attach test c3t3d0 c4t3d0 This would create a mirrored pool with 3 two-way mirrors. I would suggest attaching one disk at a time, letting it resilver and then run a scrub to ensure that each new disk is functional. Thanks, Cindy On 10/04/10 08:24, Stephan Budach wrote:/dev/dsk/c2t5d0s2 Hi, once I created a zpool of single vdevs not using mirroring of any kind. Now I wonder if it's possible to add vdevs and mirror the currently existing ones. Thanks, budy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I upgrade a striped pool of vdevs to mirrored vdevs?
On 04/10/2010 15:48, Stephan Budach wrote: gee, thanks. Of course the would be a resilver due for each vdev, but that shouldn't harm, although the vdevs are quite big. Of course there will be a resilver, otherwise the mirror won't get the existing data and it wouldn't be a mirror. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I upgrade a striped pool of vdevs to mirrored vdevs?
Duh. Yeah, its Monday morning. I didn't have 6 devices to play with so I tried to fake it. It should look like this: # zpool status test pool: test state: ONLINE scan: resilvered 85.5K in 0h0m with 0 errors on Mon Oct 4 08:54:06 2010 config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM test ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 # zpool attach test c3t1d0 c4t1d0 # zpool attach test c3t2d0 c4t2d0 # zpool attach test c3t3d0 c4t3d0 Cindy On 10/04/10 09:05, Stephan Budach wrote: Hi Cindy, very well - thanks. I noticed that either the pool you're using and the zpool that is described inb the docs already show a mirror-0 configuration, which isn't the case for my zpool: zpool status obelixData pool: obelixData state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM obelixData ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t21D023038FA8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t21D02305FF42d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors Actually, this zpool consists of two FC raids and I think I created it simply by adding these two devs to the pool. Does this disqualify my zpool for upgrading? Thanks, budy Am 04.10.10 16:48, schrieb Cindy Swearingen: Hi-- Yes, you would use the zpool attach command to convert a non-redundant configuration into a mirrored pool configuration. http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gcfhe?l=ena=view See: Example 4–6 Converting a Nonredundant ZFS Storage Pool to a Mirrored ZFS Storage Pool If you have more than one device in the pool, you would continue to attach a new disk to each existing device, like this: # zpool status test pool: test state: ONLINE scan: resilvered 85.5K in 0h0m with 0 errors on Mon Oct 4 08:44:35 2010 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM testONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 # zpool attach test c3t1d0 c4t1d0 # zpool attach test c3t2d0 c4t2d0 # zpool attach test c3t3d0 c4t3d0 This would create a mirrored pool with 3 two-way mirrors. I would suggest attaching one disk at a time, letting it resilver and then run a scrub to ensure that each new disk is functional. Thanks, Cindy On 10/04/10 08:24, Stephan Budach wrote:/dev/dsk/c2t5d0s2 Hi, once I created a zpool of single vdevs not using mirroring of any kind. Now I wonder if it's possible to add vdevs and mirror the currently existing ones. Thanks, budy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs send|recv and inherited recordsize
Hi, I thought that if I use zfs send snap | zfs recv if on a receiving side the recordsize property is set to different value it will be honored. But it doesn't seem to be the case, at least on snv_130. $ zfs get recordsize test/m1 NAME PROPERTYVALUESOURCE test/m1 recordsize 128K default $ ls -nil /test/m1/f1 5 -rw-r--r-- 1 011048576 Oct 4 10:31 /test/m1/f1 $ zdb -vv test/m1 5 Dataset test/m1 [ZPL], ID 1082, cr_txg 33413, 1.02M, 5 objects Object lvl iblk dblk dsize lsize %full type 5216K 128K 1.00M 1M 100.00 ZFS plain file $ zfs snapshot test/m...@s1 $ zfs create -o recordsize=32k test/m2 $ zfs send test/m...@s1 | zfs recv test/m2/m1 $ zfs get recordsize test/m2/m1 NAMEPROPERTYVALUESOURCE test/m2/m1 recordsize 32K inherited from test/m2 $ ls -lni /test/m2/m1/f1 5 -rw-r--r-- 1 011048576 Oct 4 10:31 /test/m2/m1/f1 $ zdb -vv test/m2/m1 5 Dataset test/m2/m1 [ZPL], ID 1110, cr_txg 33537, 1.02M, 5 objects Object lvl iblk dblk dsize lsize %full type 5216K 128K 1.00M 1M 100.00 ZFS plain file Well, dblk is 128KB - I would expect it to be 32K. Lets see what happens if I use cp instead: $ cp /test/m2/m1/f1 /test/m2/m1/f2 $ ls -lni /test/m2/m1/f2 6 -rw-r--r-- 1 011048576 Oct 4 11:15 /test/m2/m1/f2 $ zdb -vv test/m2/m1 6 Dataset test/m2/m1 [ZPL], ID 1110, cr_txg 33537, 2.03M, 6 objects Object lvl iblk dblk dsize lsize %full type 6216K32K 1.00M 1M 100.00 ZFS plain file Now it is fine. -- Robert Milkowski http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Migrating to an aclmode-less world
Any ideas anyone? -- 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] Can I upgrade a striped pool of vdevs to mirrored vdevs?
To answer your other questions, I'm not sure I'm following your FC raid description: Are you saying you created two LUNs from a FC RAID array and added them to the pool? If so, then yes, you can still attach more LUNs from the array to create a mirrored pool. A best practice is to mirror across controllers for better reliability, but ZFS doesn't check if the disks to attach are from the same array, if that's what you mean. Thanks, Cindy On 10/04/10 09:05, Stephan Budach wrote: Hi Cindy, very well - thanks. I noticed that either the pool you're using and the zpool that is described inb the docs already show a mirror-0 configuration, which isn't the case for my zpool: zpool status obelixData pool: obelixData state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM obelixData ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t21D023038FA8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c4t21D02305FF42d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors Actually, this zpool consists of two FC raids and I think I created it simply by adding these two devs to the pool. Does this disqualify my zpool for upgrading? Thanks, budy Am 04.10.10 16:48, schrieb Cindy Swearingen: Hi-- Yes, you would use the zpool attach command to convert a non-redundant configuration into a mirrored pool configuration. http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gcfhe?l=ena=view See: Example 4–6 Converting a Nonredundant ZFS Storage Pool to a Mirrored ZFS Storage Pool If you have more than one device in the pool, you would continue to attach a new disk to each existing device, like this: # zpool status test pool: test state: ONLINE scan: resilvered 85.5K in 0h0m with 0 errors on Mon Oct 4 08:44:35 2010 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM testONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c3t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 # zpool attach test c3t1d0 c4t1d0 # zpool attach test c3t2d0 c4t2d0 # zpool attach test c3t3d0 c4t3d0 This would create a mirrored pool with 3 two-way mirrors. I would suggest attaching one disk at a time, letting it resilver and then run a scrub to ensure that each new disk is functional. Thanks, Cindy On 10/04/10 08:24, Stephan Budach wrote:/dev/dsk/c2t5d0s2 Hi, once I created a zpool of single vdevs not using mirroring of any kind. Now I wonder if it's possible to add vdevs and mirror the currently existing ones. Thanks, budy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs volume snapshot
Hi All, If a ZFS volume is presented to LDOM guest domain as whole disk (used as root disk), does anyone know how to snapshot it? It is something like how to snapshot zfs raw volume (NOTE, no ufs file system directly created on ZFS volume in above case)). Thanks! Wei -- 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] Unexpected ZFS space consumption
* JR Dalrymple (j...@jrssite.com) wrote: I'm pretty new to ZFS and OpenSolaris as a whole. I am an experienced storage administrator, however my storage equipment has typically been NetApp or EMC branded. I administer NetApp FAS2000 and FAS3000 series boxes to host a VMware only virtual infrastructure so I am versed on a pretty high level at storage provisioning for a virtual environment. My problem is unexpected disk usage on deduplicated datasets holding little more than VMDKs. I experimented with deduplication on ZFS and compared it to deduplication on NetApp and found basically identical returns on a mix of backup data and user data. I was pretty excited to put some VMDKs of my own on to a system of my own. I have been disappointed with the actual results however :( Upon building VMs on this storage I found the data to consume an as expected OS only amount of disk space. As time went on the VMDKs filled out to consume their entire allocated disk space. I was hoping I could recover the lost physical disk space by using sdelete on the guests to zero out unused space on the disks, however this didn't happen as per du or df on the storage host. After zeroing unused disk space I was really hoping that the VMDKs would only consume the amount of disk actually filled by the guest as they did when the VMs were fresh. I have properly aligned VMDKs so I don't think that the problem lies there. I'm not sure what information to offer that might be helpful except the following (nfs0 is the dataset I'm working with primarily): jrdal...@yac-stor1:~$ uname -a SunOS yac-stor1 5.11 snv_134 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris jrdal...@yac-stor1:~$ zpool list NAMESIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH ALTROOT rpool 540G 228G 312G42% 1.26x ONLINE - jrdal...@yac-stor1:~$ zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool329G 238G 88.5K /rpool rpool/ROOT 7.97G 238G19K legacy rpool/ROOT/opensolaris 8.41M 238G 2.85G / rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-143.5M 238G 3.88G / rpool/ROOT/opensolaris-27.92G 238G 5.52G / rpool/dump 2.00G 238G 2.00G - rpool/export1.03G 238G23K /export rpool/export/home 1.03G 238G23K /export/home rpool/export/home/jrdalrym 1.03G 238G 1.03G /export/home/jrdalrym rpool/iscsi 103G 238G21K /rpool/iscsi rpool/iscsi/iscsi0 103G 301G 40.5G - rpool/nfs0 153G 87.3G 153G /rpool/nfs0 rpool/nfs1 49.6G 238G 40.5G /rpool/nfs1 rpool/nfs2 9.99G 50.0G 9.94G /rpool/nfs2 rpool/swap 2.00G 240G 100M - jrdal...@yac-stor1:~$ zfs get all rpool/nfs0 NAMEPROPERTY VALUE SOURCE rpool/nfs0 type filesystem - rpool/nfs0 creation Wed Aug 25 20:28 2010 - rpool/nfs0 used 153G- rpool/nfs0 available 87.3G - rpool/nfs0 referenced 153G- rpool/nfs0 compressratio 1.00x - rpool/nfs0 mounted yes - rpool/nfs0 quota 240Glocal rpool/nfs0 reservation nonedefault rpool/nfs0 recordsize 128Kdefault rpool/nfs0 mountpoint /rpool/nfs0 default rpool/nfs0 sharenfs ro...@192.168.10.0/24 local rpool/nfs0 checksum on default rpool/nfs0 compression off default rpool/nfs0 atime on default rpool/nfs0 devices on default rpool/nfs0 exec on default rpool/nfs0 setuid on default rpool/nfs0 readonly off default rpool/nfs0 zoned off default rpool/nfs0 snapdir hidden default rpool/nfs0 aclmode groupmask default rpool/nfs0 aclinherit restricted default rpool/nfs0 canmount on default rpool/nfs0 shareiscsi off default rpool/nfs0 xattr on default rpool/nfs0 copies 1 default rpool/nfs0 version 4 - rpool/nfs0 utf8only off - rpool/nfs0 normalization none- rpool/nfs0 casesensitivity sensitive - rpool/nfs0 vscan off default rpool/nfs0 nbmand off default rpool/nfs0 sharesmb off default rpool/nfs0 refquota nonedefault rpool/nfs0 refreservation nonedefault rpool/nfs0 primarycache all
[zfs-discuss] When is it okay to turn off the verify option.
Folks, As I understand, the hash generated by sha256 is almost guaranteed not to collide. I am thinking it is okay to turn off verify property on the zpool. However, if there is indeed a collision, we lose data. Scrub cannot recover such lost data. I am wondering in real life when is it okay to turn off verify option? I guess for storing business critical data (HR, finance, etc.), you cannot afford to turn this option off. Thank you in advance for your help. Regards, Peter -- 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] hot spare remains in use
Thanks, that did it. I thought detach was only for mirrors and I have a raidz2, so I didn't think to use that there. I tried replace/remove. I guess the spare is actually a mirror of the disk and the spare disk and is treated as such. Thanks again, Brian On Oct 4, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Brian, You could manually detach the spare, like this: # zpool detach pool2 c10t22d0 Sometimes, you might need to clear the pool error but I don't see any residual errors in this output: # zpool clear pool2 I would use fmdump -eV to see what's going with c10t11d0. Thanks, Cindy On 10/04/10 07:47, Brian Kolaci wrote: Hi, I had a hot spare used to replace a failed drive, but then the drive appears to be fine anyway. After clearing the error it shows that the drive was resilvered, but keeps the spare in use. zpool status pool2 pool: pool2 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM pool2 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t9d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t10d0ONLINE 0 0 0 spare ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t11d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t22d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t12d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t13d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t14d0ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c10t22d0 INUSE currently in use errors: No known data errors How can I get the spare out of the pool? Thanks, Brian ___ 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] hot spare remains in use
Hi Brian, Yes, the current wording around detaching spares is kind of confusing for RAIDZ configurations. I will fix that shortly. Thanks, Cindy On 10/04/10 11:43, Brian Kolaci wrote: Thanks, that did it. I thought detach was only for mirrors and I have a raidz2, so I didn't think to use that there. I tried replace/remove. I guess the spare is actually a mirror of the disk and the spare disk and is treated as such. Thanks again, Brian On Oct 4, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Brian, You could manually detach the spare, like this: # zpool detach pool2 c10t22d0 Sometimes, you might need to clear the pool error but I don't see any residual errors in this output: # zpool clear pool2 I would use fmdump -eV to see what's going with c10t11d0. Thanks, Cindy On 10/04/10 07:47, Brian Kolaci wrote: Hi, I had a hot spare used to replace a failed drive, but then the drive appears to be fine anyway. After clearing the error it shows that the drive was resilvered, but keeps the spare in use. zpool status pool2 pool: pool2 state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM pool2 ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz2ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t8d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t9d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t10d0ONLINE 0 0 0 spare ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t11d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t22d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t12d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t13d0ONLINE 0 0 0 c10t14d0ONLINE 0 0 0 spares c10t22d0 INUSE currently in use errors: No known data errors How can I get the spare out of the pool? Thanks, Brian ___ 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] Please warn a home user against OpenSolaris under VirtualBox under WinXP ; )
Well at the risk of being repetetive too: or another box. So yes I am considering it, but that is probably the option that requires less guidance in this thread. -- 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] zfs send|recv and inherited recordsize
That's correct. This behavior is because the send|recv operates on the DMU objects, whereas the recordsize property is interpreted by the ZPL. The ZPL checks the recordsize property when a file grows. But the recv doesn't grow any files, it just dumps data into the underlying objects. --matt On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote: Hi, I thought that if I use zfs send snap | zfs recv if on a receiving side the recordsize property is set to different value it will be honored. But it doesn't seem to be the case, at least on snv_130. $ zfs get recordsize test/m1 NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE test/m1 recordsize 128K default $ ls -nil /test/m1/f1 5 -rw-r--r-- 1 0 1 1048576 Oct 4 10:31 /test/m1/f1 $ zdb -vv test/m1 5 Dataset test/m1 [ZPL], ID 1082, cr_txg 33413, 1.02M, 5 objects Object lvl iblk dblk dsize lsize %full type 5 2 16K 128K 1.00M 1M 100.00 ZFS plain file $ zfs snapshot test/m...@s1 $ zfs create -o recordsize=32k test/m2 $ zfs send test/m...@s1 | zfs recv test/m2/m1 $ zfs get recordsize test/m2/m1 NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE test/m2/m1 recordsize 32K inherited from test/m2 $ ls -lni /test/m2/m1/f1 5 -rw-r--r-- 1 0 1 1048576 Oct 4 10:31 /test/m2/m1/f1 $ zdb -vv test/m2/m1 5 Dataset test/m2/m1 [ZPL], ID 1110, cr_txg 33537, 1.02M, 5 objects Object lvl iblk dblk dsize lsize %full type 5 2 16K 128K 1.00M 1M 100.00 ZFS plain file Well, dblk is 128KB - I would expect it to be 32K. Lets see what happens if I use cp instead: $ cp /test/m2/m1/f1 /test/m2/m1/f2 $ ls -lni /test/m2/m1/f2 6 -rw-r--r-- 1 0 1 1048576 Oct 4 11:15 /test/m2/m1/f2 $ zdb -vv test/m2/m1 6 Dataset test/m2/m1 [ZPL], ID 1110, cr_txg 33537, 2.03M, 6 objects Object lvl iblk dblk dsize lsize %full type 6 2 16K 32K 1.00M 1M 100.00 ZFS plain file Now it is fine. -- Robert Milkowski http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send|recv and inherited recordsize
thank you. On 04/10/2010 19:55, Matthew Ahrens wrote: That's correct. This behavior is because the send|recv operates on the DMU objects, whereas the recordsize property is interpreted by the ZPL. The ZPL checks the recordsize property when a file grows. But the recv doesn't grow any files, it just dumps data into the underlying objects. --matt On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Robert Milkowskimi...@task.gda.pl wrote: Hi, I thought that if I use zfs send snap | zfs recv if on a receiving side the recordsize property is set to different value it will be honored. But it doesn't seem to be the case, at least on snv_130. $ zfs get recordsize test/m1 NAME PROPERTYVALUESOURCE test/m1 recordsize 128K default $ ls -nil /test/m1/f1 5 -rw-r--r-- 1 011048576 Oct 4 10:31 /test/m1/f1 $ zdb -vv test/m1 5 Dataset test/m1 [ZPL], ID 1082, cr_txg 33413, 1.02M, 5 objects Object lvl iblk dblk dsize lsize %full type 5216K 128K 1.00M 1M 100.00 ZFS plain file $ zfs snapshot test/m...@s1 $ zfs create -o recordsize=32k test/m2 $ zfs send test/m...@s1 | zfs recv test/m2/m1 $ zfs get recordsize test/m2/m1 NAMEPROPERTYVALUESOURCE test/m2/m1 recordsize 32K inherited from test/m2 $ ls -lni /test/m2/m1/f1 5 -rw-r--r-- 1 011048576 Oct 4 10:31 /test/m2/m1/f1 $ zdb -vv test/m2/m1 5 Dataset test/m2/m1 [ZPL], ID 1110, cr_txg 33537, 1.02M, 5 objects Object lvl iblk dblk dsize lsize %full type 5216K 128K 1.00M 1M 100.00 ZFS plain file Well, dblk is 128KB - I would expect it to be 32K. Lets see what happens if I use cp instead: $ cp /test/m2/m1/f1 /test/m2/m1/f2 $ ls -lni /test/m2/m1/f2 6 -rw-r--r-- 1 011048576 Oct 4 11:15 /test/m2/m1/f2 $ zdb -vv test/m2/m1 6 Dataset test/m2/m1 [ZPL], ID 1110, cr_txg 33537, 2.03M, 6 objects Object lvl iblk dblk dsize lsize %full type 6216K32K 1.00M 1M 100.00 ZFS plain file Now it is fine. -- Robert Milkowski http://milek.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] When is it okay to turn off the verify option.
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Peter Taps As I understand, the hash generated by sha256 is almost guaranteed not to collide. I am thinking it is okay to turn off verify property on the zpool. However, if there is indeed a collision, we lose data. Scrub cannot recover such lost data. I am wondering in real life when is it okay to turn off verify option? I guess for storing business critical data (HR, finance, etc.), you cannot afford to turn this option off. Right on all points. It's a calculated risk. If you have a hash collision, you will lose data undetected, and backups won't save you unless *you* are the backup. That is, if the good data, before it got corrupted by your system, happens to be saved somewhere else before it reached your system. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] When is it okay to turn off the verify option.
Why do you want to turn verify off? If performance is the reason, is it significant, on and off? On Oct 4, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Peter Taps As I understand, the hash generated by sha256 is almost guaranteed not to collide. I am thinking it is okay to turn off verify property on the zpool. However, if there is indeed a collision, we lose data. Scrub cannot recover such lost data. I am wondering in real life when is it okay to turn off verify option? I guess for storing business critical data (HR, finance, etc.), you cannot afford to turn this option off. Right on all points. It's a calculated risk. If you have a hash collision, you will lose data undetected, and backups won't save you unless *you* are the backup. That is, if the good data, before it got corrupted by your system, happens to be saved somewhere else before it reached your system. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss Scott Meilicke ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS crypto bug status change
Seems that the bug for ZFS data set encryption is now in a state of 10-Fix Delivered: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4854202 Via: http://sparcv9.blogspot.com/2010/10/zfs-crypto-integrated.html Thank you Mr. Moffat et al. Hopefully the rest of us will be able to bang on this at some point. :) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Migrating to an aclmode-less world
Hi Simon, I don't think you will see much difference for these reasons: 1. The CIFS server ignores the aclinherit/aclmode properties. 2. Your aclinherit=passthrough setting overrides the aclmode property anyway. 3. The only difference is that if you use chmod on these files to manually change the permissions, you will lose the ACL values. Thanks, Cindy On 09/29/10 13:09, Simon Breden wrote: Currently I'm still using OpenSolaris b134 and I had used the 'aclmode' property on my file systems. However, the aclmode property has been dropped now: http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2010/029/20100126_mark.shellenbaum I'm wondering what will happen to the ACLs on these files and directories if I upgrade to a newer Solaris version (OpenIndiana b147 perhaps). I'm sharing the file systems using CIFS. I was using very simple ACLs like below for easy inheritance of ACLs, which worked OK for my needs. # zfs set aclinherit=passthrough tank/home/fred/projects # zfs set aclmode=passthrough tank/home/fred/projects # chmod A=\ owner@:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-:allow,\ group@:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-:allow,\ everyone@:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-:deny \ /tank/home/fred/projects # chown fred:fred /tank/home/fred/projects # zfs set sharesmb=name=projects tank/home/fred/projects Cheers, Simon ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] When is it okay to turn off the verify option.
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Scott Meilicke Why do you want to turn verify off? If performance is the reason, is it significant, on and off? Under most circumstances, verify won't hurt performance. It won't hurt reads of any kind, and it won't hurt writes when you're writing unique data, or if you're writing duplicate data which is warm in the read cache. It will basically hurt write performance if you are writing duplicate data, which was not read recently. This might be the case, for example, if this machine is the target for some remote machine to backup onto. The problem doesn't exist if you're copying local data, because you first read the data (now it's warm in cache) before writing it. So the verify operation is essentially zero time in that case. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
