Re: [zfs-discuss] Running on Dell hardware?
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey > > But a few days ago, Dell released a new firmware upgrade, from version 5.x > to 4.x. That's right. The new firmware is a downgrade to 4. > > I am going to remove my intel add-on card, and resume using my integrated > broadcom nic. I am quite certain the system will continue to be stable, and > at last we can call this issue resolved permanently. Oh well. Already, the weird crash has happened again. So we're concluding two things: -1- The broadcom nic is definitely the cause of the crash. and -2- Even with the new "upgrade" downgrade, the problem is not solved. So the solution is add-on intel nic, and disable broadcom integrated nic. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
> From: Joerg Schilling [mailto:joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de] > > > Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune > to netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band > together and fund the open-source development of ZFS and openindiana... > It's a real risk. > > I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents are > invalid because of prior art. I agree, for that and many other reasons. But it doesn't matter what I think. It only matters what Steve Jobs and others think, and it also matters how much it would cost them to make their point in court. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 00:17:08 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: : If you have substancial information on why NetApp may rightfully own a patent : that is essential for ZFS, I would be interested to get this information. Trivial: the US patent system is fundamentally broken, so owning patents on more or less anything is possible, whether inforceable or not. The act of defending against an invalid patent costs a fortune, so most entities aren't willing to try. Easier to avoid. You know this, I'm sure. -- Dickon Hood Due to digital rights management, my .sig is temporarily unavailable. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. We apologise for the inconvenience in the meantime. No virus was found in this outgoing message as I didn't bother looking. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 13:22:28 -0500, Miles Nordin wrote: : The only thing missing is ZFS. To me it looks like a good replacement : for that is years away. I'm not excited about ocfs, or about kernel : module ZFS ports taking advantage of the Linus kmod ``interpretation'' : and the grub GPLv3 patent protection. I'm of the opinion that that's a nice hack that Oracle won't object to, right up until some other project decides to try and use it. IANAL, don't work for Oracle, never worked for Sun, and have no financial interest in the outcome, and that's nothing but a wild guess, but I'd love someone to take the codebase and produce something commercial with it. I'll just stand back and watch, from a safe distance. It'll be worth it. I'm sure I'd learn a lot. -- Dickon Hood Due to digital rights management, my .sig is temporarily unavailable. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. We apologise for the inconvenience in the meantime. No virus was found in this outgoing message as I didn't bother looking. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] snaps lost in space?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Joost Mulders wrote: > Right now there's no way to tell what snapshots to delete to get the space > back. Only way is to delete a snapshot and then see if a USED of snap > increased. AFAIK Netapp has a similar problem with their display too, in that it only shows how much space will be freed by deleting an individual snapshot. There's no way to group a set of snapshots and determine how much space will be freed by deleting all of them without doing 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] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Tim Cook wrote: > > > > I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents > are > > > invalid because of prior art. > > > > > > > > You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It > is > > your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every time you repeated > > that statement, you'd preface it with "in my opinion" so you don't have > > people running around believing what they're doing is safe. I'd hope > they'd > > be smart enough to consult with a lawyer, but it's probably better to > just > > not spread unsubstantiated rumor in the first place. > > If you have substancial information on why NetApp may rightfully own a > patent > that is essential for ZFS, I would be interested to get this information. > > Jörg > > The initial filing was public record. It has been posted on this mailing list already, and you responded to those posts. I'm not sure why you're acting like you're oblivious to the case. Regardless, I'll answer your rhetorical question: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20080529163415471 You BELIEVING the are wrong doesn't make it so, sorry. Until it is settled in a court of law, or the patent office invalidates their patents, you are making unsubstantiated claims. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
Tim Cook wrote: > > I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents are > > invalid because of prior art. > > > > > You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It is > your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every time you repeated > that statement, you'd preface it with "in my opinion" so you don't have > people running around believing what they're doing is safe. I'd hope they'd > be smart enough to consult with a lawyer, but it's probably better to just > not spread unsubstantiated rumor in the first place. If you have substancial information on why NetApp may rightfully own a patent that is essential for ZFS, I would be interested to get this information. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Edward Ned Harvey > wrote: > > > Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune > to netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band > together and fund the open-source development of ZFS and openindiana... > It's a real risk. > > I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents are > invalid because of prior art. > > You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It is your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every time you repeated that statement, you'd preface it with "in my opinion" so you don't have people running around believing what they're doing is safe. I'd hope they'd be smart enough to consult with a lawyer, but it's probably better to just not spread unsubstantiated rumor in the first place. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
We have ZFS version 28. Whether we ever get another open source update of ZFS from *Oracle* is at this point doubtful. However, I will point out that there are a lot of former Oracle engineers, including both inventors of ZFS and many of the people who have worked on it over the years, who are no longer part of Oracle. A number of those people have committed to working on ZFS related projects outside of Oracle, and I think ZFS will continue to evolve on its own in the open. We'll have more to say on the matter early next year, I think. -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org on behalf of Edward Ned Harvey Sent: Fri 12/10/2010 5:31 AM To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward? It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. What's the latest version of publicly released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-source moving forward? Nexenta ... openindiana ... etc ... Are they all screwed? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune to > netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band together > and fund the open-source development of ZFS and openindiana... It's a real > risk. I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents are invalid because of prior art. As mentioned before, The basic ideas of Copy On Write filesystems which include methods to find the most recent Filesystem SuperBlock in such a case and the derived methods to create "cheap" snapshots have not been invented by NetApp but this happened years before NetApp came up with such a filesystem. I have no knowledge of systems that be older than my WOFS but I developed the WOFS basics in 1989 and made the implementation in 1989 and 1990, the Dimplma Thesis was published in May 1991. Those basics from WAFS and ZFS are no more than a reimplementation of already existing ideas. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Van Damme > > And if they don't, it will be Sad, both in terms of useful code not > being available to a wide community to review and amend, as in terms > of Oracle not really getting the point about open source development. The thing that's really strange is ... BTRFS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but oracle is and always has been a major contributor there? 'Course, for all I know, it could be sabotage. ;-) I mean ... BTRFS ... Is years away from what I would be comfortable deploying in production... But if you've got a huge compute cluster, what are you supposed to do? Pay for solaris on every one? Of course that's ridiculous. Of course in such a situation, you want the "centos" instead of the "rhel." But what if there was a major closed-source feature unavailable in centos or openindiana? Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune to netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band together and fund the open-source development of ZFS and openindiana... It's a real risk. I guess, all things considered, the price for solaris is entirely reasonable when you're building a fileserver. It's really just desktops and laptops and compute farms which suffer. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
> "et" == Erik Trimble writes: et> In that case, can I be the first to say "PANIC! RUN FOR THE et> HILLS!" Erik I thought most people already understood pushing to the public hg gate had stopped at b147, hence Illumos and OpenIndiana. it's not that you're wrong, just that you should be in the hills by now if you started out running. the S11 Express release without source and with its new, more-onerous license than SXCE is new dismal news, and the problems on other projects and the waves of smart people leaving might be even more dismal for opensolaris since in the past there was a lot of integration and a lot of forward progress, but what you were specifically asking about dates in hg was already included in the old bad news AFAIK. And anyway there was never complete source code, nor source for all new work (drivers), nor source for the stable branch, which has always been a serious problem. The good news to my view is that Linux may actually be only about one year behind (and sometimes ahead) on the non-ZFS features in Solaris. FreeBSD is missing basically all of this, ex jails are really not as thorough as VServer or LXC, but Linux is basically there already: * Xen support is better. Oracle is sinking Solaris Xen support in favour of some old Oracle Xen kit based on Linux, I think? which is disruptive and annoying for me, because I originally used OpenSolaris Xen to get some isolation from the churn of Linux Xen. but it means there's a fully-free-software path that's not even less annoying a transition than what Oracle's offering through partially-free uncertain-future tools. * Infiniband support in Linux was always good. They don't have a single COMSTAR system which is too bad, but they have SCST for SRP (non-IP RDMA SCSI, the COMSTAR one that people say works with VMWare), and stgt for iSER (the one that works with the Solaris initiator). * instead of Crossbow they have RPS and RFS, which give some performance boost with ordinary network cards, not just with 10gig ones with flow caches. My understanding's hazy but I think, with an ordinary card, you still have to take an IPI, but it will touch hardly any of the packet on the wrongCPU so you can still take advantage of per-core caches hot with TCP-flow-specific structures. I'm not a serious enough developer to know whether RPS+RFS is more or less thorough than the Crossbow-branded stuff, but it was committed to mainline at about the same time as Crossbow. * Dreamhost is already selling Linux zones based on VServer and has been for many years, so there *is* a zones alternative on Linux, and better yet unlike the incompletely-delivered and eventually removed lx brand, on Linux you get Linux zones with Linux packages and nginx working with epoll and sendfile (on solaris, for me eventport works but sendfile does not). There's supposedly a total rewrite of VServer in the works called LXC, so maybe that will be the truly good one. It may take them longer to get sysadmin tools that match zonecfg/zoneadm, but the path is set. * LTTng is an attempt at something dtrace-like. It's still experimental, but has the same idea of large libraries of probes, programs cannot tell if they're being traced or not, and relatively sophisticated bundled analysis tools. http://multivax.blogspot.com/2010/11/introduction-to-linux-tracing-toolkit.html -- LTTng linux dtrace competitor The only thing missing is ZFS. To me it looks like a good replacement for that is years away. I'm not excited about ocfs, or about kernel module ZFS ports taking advantage of the Linus kmod ``interpretation'' and the grub GPLv3 patent protection. Instead I'm hoping they skip this stage and style of storage and go straight to something Lustre-like that supports snapshots. I've got my eye on ceph, and on Lustre itself of course because of the IB support. ex perhaps in the end you will have 64 - 256MB of atftpd-provided initramfs which never goes away where init and sshd and libc and all the complicated filesystem-related userspace lives, so there is no more problems of running /usr/sbin/zpool off of a ZFS---you will always be able to administrate your system even if every ``disk'' is hung (or if cluster access is disrupted). and there will not be a complexity difference between a laptop with local disks and cluster storage---everything will be the full-on complicated version. I feel ZFS doesn't scale small enough for phones, nor big enough for what people are already doing in data centers, so why not give up on small completely and waste even more RAM and complexity in the laptop case? and one of the most interesting appnotes to me about ZFS is this one relling posted long ago: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/820-7821/girgb?a=view which is an extremely limited analog of what ceph and Lustre do, where compute and storage nodes do not necessarily need to be separa
[zfs-discuss] What performance to expect from mirror vdevs?
Hi, on friday I received two of my new fc raids, that I intended to use as my new zpool devices. These devices are from CiDesign and their type/model is iR16FC4ER. These are fc raids, that also allow JBOD operation, which is what I chose. So I configured 16 raid groups on each system and configured the raids to attach them to their fc channel one by one. On my Sol11Expr host I have created a zpool of mirror vdevs, by selecting 1 disk from either raid. This way I got a zpool that looks like this: r...@solaris11c:~# zpool status newObelixData pool: newObelixData state: ONLINE scan: resilvered 1K in 0h0m with 0 errors on Sat Dec 11 15:25:35 2010 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM newObelixData ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d1 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d1 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-2 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d2 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d2 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-3 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d3 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d3 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-4 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d4 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d4 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-5 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d5 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d5 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-6 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d6 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d6 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-7 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d7 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d7 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-8 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d8 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d8 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-9 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d9 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d9 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-10 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d10 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d10 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-11 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d11 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d11 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-12 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d12 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d12 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-13 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d13 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d13 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-14 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d14 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d14 ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-15 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC02C7d15 ONLINE 0 0 0 c9t211378AC0355d15 ONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors At first I disabled all write cache and read ahead options for each raid group on the raids, since I wanted to provide ZFS as much control over the drives as possible, but the performance was quite worse. I am running this zpool on a Sun Fire X4170M2 with 32 GB of RAM so I ran bonnie++ with -s 63356 -n 128 and got these results: Sequential Output char: 51819 block: 50602 rewrite: 28090 Sequential Input: char: 62562 block 60979 Random seeks: 510 <- this seems really low to me, isn't it? Sequential Create: create: 27529 read: 172287 delete: 30522 Random Create: create: 25531 read: 244977 delete 29423 Since I was curious, what would happen, if I'd enable WriteCache and ReadAhead on the raid groups, I turned them on for all 32 devices and re-ran bonnie++. To my great dismay, this time zfs had a lot of random troubles with the drives, where zfs would remove drives arbitrarily from the pool since they exceeded the error thresholds. On one run, this only happend to 4 drives from one fc raid on the next run 3 drives from the other raid got removed from the pool. I know, that I'd better disable all "optimization
Re: [zfs-discuss] Running on Dell hardware?
Am 10.12.10 19:13, schrieb Edward Ned Harvey: From: Edward Ned Harvey [mailto:sh...@nedharvey.com] It has been over 3 weeks now, with no crashes, and me doing everything I can to get it to crash again. So I'm going to call this one resolved... All I did was disable the built-in Broadcom network cards, and buy an add- on Intel network card (EXPI9400PT). Wow, I can't believe this topic continues... Yes, I am entirely confident now saying it was the fault of the bcom card. However, if you recall, people who started with bcom firmware v4.x were stable, then they upgraded to v5.x and became unstable, so they downgraded and returned to stable. Unfortunately for me, I have an R710, which shipped with v5 factory installed, and there was no option to downgrade... But a few days ago, Dell released a new firmware upgrade, from version 5.x to 4.x. That's right. The new firmware is a downgrade to 4. I am going to remove my intel add-on card, and resume using my integrated broadcom nic. I am quite certain the system will continue to be stable, and at last we can call this issue resolved permanently. Wow - that's interesting. I will certainly "update" my current bcom fw to get to 4.x. Thanks for the heads-up. Cheers, budy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On Dec 11, 2010, at 14:15, Frank Van Damme wrote: 2010/12/10 Freddie Cash : On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. What's the latest version of publicly released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-source moving forward? Nexenta ... openindiana ... etc ... Are they all screwed? ZFSv28 is available for FreeBSD 9-CURRENT. We won't know until after Oracle releases Solaris 11 whether or not they'll live up to their promise to open the source to ZFSv31. Until Solaris 11 is released, there's really not much point in debating it. And if they don't, it will be Sad, both in terms of useful code not being available to a wide community to review and amend, as in terms of Oracle not really getting the point about open source development. I think it's a known fact that Oracle hasn't got the point of open source development. Forks ahoy! http://www.jroller.com/niclas/entry/apache_leaves_jcp_ec ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
2010/12/10 Freddie Cash : > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey > wrote: >> It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. >> What's the latest version of publicly released ZFS? Has oracle made it >> closed-source moving forward? >> >> Nexenta ... openindiana ... etc ... Are they all screwed? > > ZFSv28 is available for FreeBSD 9-CURRENT. > > We won't know until after Oracle releases Solaris 11 whether or not > they'll live up to their promise to open the source to ZFSv31. Until > Solaris 11 is released, there's really not much point in debating it. And if they don't, it will be Sad, both in terms of useful code not being available to a wide community to review and amend, as in terms of Oracle not really getting the point about open source development. -- Frank Van Damme No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen, dead or alive or by any means, including but not limited to telepathy without the benevolence of the author. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On 12/11/2010 3:59 AM, casper@sun.com wrote: ransfer-encoding: 7BIT On 11/12/2010 00:07, Erik Trimble wrote: The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which, I *think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express snapshot was taken. I don't think this is the case. Although all the files show modification date of 29 Oct 2010 at src.opensolaris.org they are still old versions from August, at least the ones I checked. See http://src.opensolaris.org/source/history/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/ the mercurial gate doesn't have any updates either. Correct; the last public push was on 2010/8/18. Casper Hmm. In that case, can I be the first to say "PANIC! RUN FOR THE HILLS!" :-) -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
ransfer-encoding: 7BIT > >On 11/12/2010 00:07, Erik Trimble wrote: >> >> The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which, >> I *think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express >> snapshot was taken. >> > >I don't think this is the case. >Although all the files show modification date of 29 Oct 2010 at >src.opensolaris.org they are still old versions from August, at least >the ones I checked. > >See >http://src.opensolaris.org/source/history/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/ > >the mercurial gate doesn't have any updates either. Correct; the last public push was on 2010/8/18. Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On 11/12/2010 00:07, Erik Trimble wrote: The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which, I *think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express snapshot was taken. I don't think this is the case. Although all the files show modification date of 29 Oct 2010 at src.opensolaris.org they are still old versions from August, at least the ones I checked. See http://src.opensolaris.org/source/history/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/ the mercurial gate doesn't have any updates either. Best regards, Robert Milkowski ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] raidz recovery
Hi all, I'm trying to simulate a drive failure and recovery on a raidz array. I'm able to do so using 'replace', but this requires an extra disk that was not part of the array. How do you manage when you don't have or need an extra disk yet? For example when I 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/ad6', or physically remove the drive for awhile, then 'online' the disk, after it resilvers I'm typically left with the following after scrubbing: r...@file:~# zpool status pool: pool state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an unrecoverable error. An attempt was made to correct the error. Applications are unaffected. action: Determine if the device needs to be replaced, and clear the errors using 'zpool clear' or replace the device with 'zpool replace'. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-9P scrub: scrub completed after 0h0m with 0 errors on Fri Dec 10 23:45:56 2010 config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM poolONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1ONLINE 0 0 0 ad12ONLINE 0 0 0 ad13ONLINE 0 0 0 ad4 ONLINE 0 0 0 ad6 ONLINE 0 0 7 errors: No known data errors http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-9P lists my above actions as a cause for this state and rightfully doesn't think them serious. When I 'clear' the errors though and offline/fault another drive, and then reboot, the array faults. That tells me ad6 was never fully integrated back in. Can I tell the array to re-add ad6 from scratch? 'detach' and 'remove' don't work for raidz. Otherwise I need to use 'replace' to get out of this situation. My system: r...@file:~# uname -a FreeBSD file 8.2-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 8.2-PRERELEASE #0: Sun Nov 28 13:36:08 SAST 2010 r...@file:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/COWNEL amd64 r...@file:~# dmesg | grep ZFS ZFS filesystem version 4 ZFS storage pool version 15 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
