Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
Le 13/12/2010 01:56, Tim Cook a écrit : Yes, only the USA, which is where all relevant companies in this discussion do business. On a mailing list centered around a company founded in and doing business in the USA. So what exactly is your point? Don't you forget that these companies also do much of their business in foreign countries (Europe, Asia) where software patenting is not allowed, where American law is not applicable, and where they have competitors? And do you really believe that this mailing list is only devoted to (US) Americans just because the products originated in the US, and the vernacular is English? -- Éditions de l'Âge d'Or — Stanley G. Weinbaum http://www.lulu.com/robert_soubie ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] What performance to expect from mirror vdevs?
Bob, Ian… thanks for your input. It may be that the fw on the raid really got overloaded and that may had to do with the way the GUI works. I am now testing the same configuration on another host, where I can risk some lockups when running bonnie++. I am able to set some options on the drive level, namely write cache and read ahead as well as on the virtual drive level. Unfortuanetly the options on the virtual drive level are called equally and I thought that setting these options on the drive level when configuring a JBOD raid group would also set them on the virtual disk level, but that didn't happen. ;) So, odds are quite good that I overloaded the raid controller with lots of virtual disks that had their cache settings to write through and read ahead on. ATM, I have all options disabled on the drive level and on the raid group level as well as on the virtual drive level. My current run of bonnie is of course not that satisfactory and I wanted to ask you, if it's safe to turn on at least the drive level options, namely the write cache and the read ahead? Thanks, budy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Guide to COMSTAR iSCSI?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! I have configured two LUs following this guide: http://thegreyblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/setting-up-solaris-comstar-and.html Now I want each LU to be available to only one distinct client in the network. I found no easy guide how to accomplish the anywhere in the internet. Any hint? Martin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNBIw2AAoJEA6eiwqkMgR8vAcH/0jeBh0PvZdnjLK4FOY6/Xw1 JwAqdNbS5jvUn8pvYRxdA379gqyZNoFXMRTpPl5Xefw88rpXS+vqvDHoaM1A5Wov tTERXrh9DMACAswm4KYnA7lcWxEUJWBJ8LA870Sd6GVqPHbBnE+R+o2Op69XUy/g +sAa0f7MDHPJP46xad5/qweUVRNZ0C+Ka2YYqhWKvYTN2DEYmFfnem+c6Vna2TXv uOLoEeV+CHOI/BdrpcDaU8XQzAS5f1x/oTPhk56j0Uzm4q8+aKqc2YTccvGnRJCm 8F+/ZyZ40fy2TRLfhmZIGoL+y9nrJqUDm+K2jXkdH/55vzsk+EdhfZUlDYXsalo= =NdL6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
rs == Robert Soubie robert.sou...@free.fr writes: rs Don't you forget that these companies also do much of their rs business in foreign countries (Europe, Asia) where software rs patenting is not allowed, dated myth. software patents do exist in europe, and the EPO has issued them. Fewer are issued, and then there's more enforceability question because unlke US, Europe has true federalism, but they still exist. If you google for 'software patents europe' there is stuff explaining this on the first page. The EU patent debate seems to me about fighting attempts to globally homogenize patents so that mountains of new patents would suddenly become valid in Europe, and companies could jurisdiction-shop so you would lose democratic control of the system's future. It's definitely not as simple or as good as ``preserve the status quo of no software patents.'' The European status quo is already not good enough to be safe. It's just vastly better than the future WIPO ASSO wants to bring you. rs where American law is not applicable, Unfortunately I think American law is always applicable because it seems patent law lets you sue almost anyone you like---the guy who wrote it, the company that distributed it, the customer who bought it. Only one has to be American, so American patents can be monetized with few Americans involved. When companies are conducting business negotiations based on the threat of lawsuit rather than the result, these suits don't have to get very far for the blackmail to translate into ``value.'' If there are really European companies opting out of the American market entirely because of patents, I think that's fantastic, but it doesn't seem very plausible with software where you want a big market more than anything. rs And do you really believe that this mailing list is only rs devoted to (US) Americans just because the products originated rs in the US, and the vernacular is English? your rage against hegemony or imperialism or empire or whatever you want to whine about this week is misplaced here: if you have a problem with American attitude or with the political landscape of the world, fine, that's smart, me too, whatever, but it's got zero to do with the complication patents add to an Oracle-free ZFS. Yeah it's really American companies doing almost all this work (sorry, proud Europe!), but anyway being European doesn't mean you can ignore American patents because even the (unlikely?) best case of suddenly losing the entire American market while suffering no loss from a judgement is still bad enough to kill a company. What's on-topic is: * when do the CDDL patent protections apply? to deals between Oracle and Netapp? or is it only protection against Oracle patents? I think the latter, but then, which Oracle patents? Suppose: + Oracle patents something needed ZFS crypto + Oracle publishes the promised yet-to-be-delivered zfs-crypto paper that's thorough enough to write a compatible implementation + Oracle makes no further ZFS source releases, ever + Nexenta reimplements zfs-crypto and releases it CDDL with the rest of ZFS + Oracle sues Nexenta. Oracle uses ``discovery'' to get exhaustive Nexenta customer list. Oracle sues users of Nexenta. Oracle monetizes ``Nexenta indemnification pack'' patent licenses and blackmails Nexenta's customers. CDDL was meant to create a space that appeared to be safe from the last point. But CDDL patent stuff is no help here, I think? so, in effect, patents reduce the software freedoms given by CDDL because, once you fork whatever partial source Oracle deems fit to distribute, you suffer increasing risk of stepping onto an (Oracle-placed!) patent landmine. * AIUI Oracle has distributed grub with zfs patches, and grub is GPLv3. Is this true? If so, GPLv3 includes stuff to extend patent deals, which was added becuase GPLv3 was written under the ominous spectre of the Microsoft-Novell Linux indemnification deal. Does GPLv3 grub extend any of the Netapp deal to those patented algorithms which are used within grub? The GPLv3 is supposed to do some of this, but I don't know how much. Is it extended only to grub users for use in grub, or can the patented stuff in grub be used anywhere by anyone who can get a copy of grub: download GPLv3 grub, then use CDDL ZFS in a Linux kmod with Oracle-provided immunity from any Netapp suit related to a ZFS patent used also in grub? This sounds totally unrealistic to me, so I would guess the GPLv3 protection would be much less, but then what is it? And anyway, though GPLv3 is meant to mandatorily extend private patent deals, how can any patent protection from the Netapp deal be extended when the deal is secret? Don't you need some basis to force disclosure of the deal, and some way to define ``all relevant deals''? If Oracle is defending
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
On 12/13/10 05:55 PM, Miles Nordin wrote: + Oracle publishes the promised yet-to-be-delivered zfs-crypto paper that's thorough enough to write a compatible implementation It isn't yet the full paper but a lot of the on disk details are in my latest blog entry and all of the structs necessary for the on disk format are in the CTF data of the binaries. http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_encryption_what_is_on -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Guide to COMSTAR iSCSI?
I have found this post from Mike La Spina to be very detailed covering this topic, yet I could not seem to get it to work right on my first hasty attempt a while back. Let me know if you have success, or adjustments that get this to work. http://blog.laspina.ca/ubiquitous/securing-comstar-and-vmware-iscsi-connections -Chris On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Martin Mundschenk m.mundsch...@mundschenk.de wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! I have configured two LUs following this guide: http://thegreyblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/setting-up-solaris-comstar-and.html Now I want each LU to be available to only one distinct client in the network. I found no easy guide how to accomplish the anywhere in the internet. Any hint? Martin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNBIw2AAoJEA6eiwqkMgR8vAcH/0jeBh0PvZdnjLK4FOY6/Xw1 JwAqdNbS5jvUn8pvYRxdA379gqyZNoFXMRTpPl5Xefw88rpXS+vqvDHoaM1A5Wov tTERXrh9DMACAswm4KYnA7lcWxEUJWBJ8LA870Sd6GVqPHbBnE+R+o2Op69XUy/g +sAa0f7MDHPJP46xad5/qweUVRNZ0C+Ka2YYqhWKvYTN2DEYmFfnem+c6Vna2TXv uOLoEeV+CHOI/BdrpcDaU8XQzAS5f1x/oTPhk56j0Uzm4q8+aKqc2YTccvGnRJCm 8F+/ZyZ40fy2TRLfhmZIGoL+y9nrJqUDm+K2jXkdH/55vzsk+EdhfZUlDYXsalo= =NdL6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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] Guide to COMSTAR iSCSI?
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Chris Mosetick cmoset...@gmail.com wrote: I have found this post from Mike La Spina to be very detailed covering this topic, yet I could not seem to get it to work right on my first hasty attempt a while back. Let me know if you have success, or adjustments that get this to work. http://blog.laspina.ca/ubiquitous/securing-comstar-and-vmware-iscsi-connections -Chris On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Martin Mundschenk m.mundsch...@mundschenk.de wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! I have configured two LUs following this guide: http://thegreyblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/setting-up-solaris-comstar-and.html Now I want each LU to be available to only one distinct client in the network. I found no easy guide how to accomplish the anywhere in the internet. Any hint? Martin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNBIw2AAoJEA6eiwqkMgR8vAcH/0jeBh0PvZdnjLK4FOY6/Xw1 JwAqdNbS5jvUn8pvYRxdA379gqyZNoFXMRTpPl5Xefw88rpXS+vqvDHoaM1A5Wov tTERXrh9DMACAswm4KYnA7lcWxEUJWBJ8LA870Sd6GVqPHbBnE+R+o2Op69XUy/g +sAa0f7MDHPJP46xad5/qweUVRNZ0C+Ka2YYqhWKvYTN2DEYmFfnem+c6Vna2TXv uOLoEeV+CHOI/BdrpcDaU8XQzAS5f1x/oTPhk56j0Uzm4q8+aKqc2YTccvGnRJCm 8F+/ZyZ40fy2TRLfhmZIGoL+y9nrJqUDm+K2jXkdH/55vzsk+EdhfZUlDYXsalo= =NdL6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Looking at that, the one comment I'd make is that I'd strongly suggest avoiding CHAP. It really provides nothing in the way of security, and simply adds more complexity. If you're doing iSCSI across a WAN (I really hope you aren't), you'd be better served using a VPN. If you're doing it on a LAN and you're concerned about security, use VLAN's. It's generally a good idea to dedicate a VLAN to vmware storage traffic anyways (whether it be iSCSI or NFS) if your infrastructure can handle VLAN's. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz recovery
z...@lordcow.org said: 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. After you clear the errors, do another scrub before trying anything else. Once you get a complete scrub with no new errors (and no checksum errors), you should be confident that the damaged drive has been fully re-integrated into the pool. Regards, Marion ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] What performance to expect from mirror vdevs?
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Stephan Budach wrote: My current run of bonnie is of course not that satisfactory and I wanted to ask you, if it's safe to turn on at least the drive level options, namely the write cache and the read ahead? Enabling the write cache is fine as long as it is non-volatile or is flushed to disk when zfs requests it. Zfs will request a transaction-group flush on all disks before proceeding with the next batch of writes. The read ahead might not be all that valuable in practice (and might cause a severe penalty) because it assumes a particular mode and timing of access which might not match how your system is actually used. Most usage scenarios are something other than what bonnie++ does. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] What performance to expect from mirror vdevs?
Am 14.12.2010 um 03:30 schrieb Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us: On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Stephan Budach wrote: My current run of bonnie is of course not that satisfactory and I wanted to ask you, if it's safe to turn on at least the drive level options, namely the write cache and the read ahead? Enabling the write cache is fine as long as it is non-volatile or is flushed to disk when zfs requests it. Zfs will request a transaction-group flush on all disks before proceeding with the next batch of writes. The read ahead might not be all that valuable in practice (and might cause a severe penalty) because it assumes a particular mode and timing of access which might not match how your system is actually used. Most usage scenarios are something other than what bonnie++ does. I know that bonnie++ does not generate the workload I will see on my server, but it reliably causes ZFS to kick out drives from the pool, which shouldn't happen, of course. Actually, I am expecting the Qsan controller fw, which is what is build into these raids, has some issues, when it has to deal with high random I/O. I will try now my good old Infortrend systems and See, if I can reproduce this issue with them as well. Cheers, Budy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Resilver misleading output
Hello everyone, I have a pool consisting of 28 1TB sata disks configured in 15*2 vdevs raid1 (2 disks per mirror)2 SSD in miror for the ZIL and 3 SSD's for L2ARC, and recently i added two more disks. For some reason the resilver process kicked in, and the system is noticeable slower, but i'm clueless to what should i do , because the zpool status says that the resilver process has finished. This system is running opensolaris snv_134, has 32GB of memory, and here's the zpool output zpool status -xv vol0 pool: vol0 state: ONLINE status: One or more devices is currently being resilvered. The pool will continue to function, possibly in a degraded state. action: Wait for the resilver to complete. scrub: resilver in progress for 13h24m, 100.00% done, 0h0m to go config: zpool iostat snip mirror-12 ONLINE 0 0 0 c8t5000C5001A11A4AEd0ONLINE 0 0 0 c8t5000C5001A10CFB7d0ONLINE 0 0 0 1.71G resilvered mirror-13 ONLINE 0 0 0 c8t5000C5001A0F621Dd0ONLINE 0 0 0 c8t5000C50019EB3E2Ed0ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-14 ONLINE 0 0 0 c8t5000C5001A0F543Dd0ONLINE 0 0 0 c8t5000C5001A105D8Cd0ONLINE 0 0 0 mirror-15 ONLINE 0 0 0 c8t5000C5001A0FEB16d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 c8t5000C50019C1D460d0ONLINE 0 0 0 4.06G resilvered Any idea for this type of situation? Thanks, Bruno -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
