Re: [zfs-discuss] S11 vs illumos zfs compatiblity
On 12/14/12 10:07 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote: Is that right? You can't use zfs send | zfs receive to send from a newer version and receive on an older version? No. You can, with recv, override any property in the sending stream that can be set from the command line (ie, a writable). Version is not one of those properties. It only gets changed, in an upward direction, when you do a zfs upgrade. ie: # zfs get version repo/support NAME PROPERTY VALUESOURCE repo/support version 5- # zfs send repo/support@cpu-0412 | zfs recv -o version=4 repo/test cannot receive: cannot override received version You can send a version 6 file system into a version 28 pool, but it will still be a version 6 file system. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] S11 vs illumos zfs compatiblity
That is a touch misleading. This has always been the case since S10u2. You have to create the pool AND the file systems at the oldest versions you want to support. I maintain a table of pool and version numbers on my blog (blogs.oracle. com/bobn) for this very purpose. I got lazy the other day and made this mistake between 11ga and 11.1. Watch the ZFS send approach because you might be sending a newer file system version than is supported. Yes, I've done that too :) Bob Sent from my iPhone On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Jan Owoc jso...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:14 AM, sol a...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi I've just tried to use illumos (151a5) import a pool created on solaris (11.1) but it failed with an error about the pool being incompatible. Are we now at the stage where the two prongs of the zfs fork are pointing in incompatible directions? Yes, that is correct. The last version of Solaris with source code used zpool version 28. This is the last version that is readable by non-Solaris operating systems FreeBSD, GNU/Linux, but also OpenIndiana. The filesystem, zfs, is technically at the same version, but you can't access it if you can't access the pool :-). If you want to access the data now, your only option is to use Solaris to read it, and copy it over (eg. with zfs send | recv) onto a pool created with version 28. Jan ___ 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] S11 vs illumos zfs compatiblity
At this point, the only thing would be to use 11.1 to create a new pool at 151's version (-o version=) and top level dataset (-O version=). Recreate the file system hierarchy and do something like an rsync. I don't think there is anything more elegant, I'm afraid. That's what I did yesterday :) Bob Sent from my iPhone On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Jan Owoc jso...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Bob Netherton bob.nether...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Jan Owoc jso...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, that is correct. The last version of Solaris with source code used zpool version 28. This is the last version that is readable by non-Solaris operating systems FreeBSD, GNU/Linux, but also OpenIndiana. The filesystem, zfs, is technically at the same version, but you can't access it if you can't access the pool :-). That is a touch misleading. This has always been the case since S10u2. You have to create the pool AND the file systems at the oldest versions you want to support. I maintain a table of pool and version numbers on my blog (blogs.oracle. com/bobn) for this very purpose. I got lazy the other day and made this mistake between 11ga and 11.1. Watch the ZFS send approach because you might be sending a newer file system version than is supported. Yes, I've done that too :) Bob, you are correct. There is now a new version of zfs in Solaris 11.1. I assume it's incompatible with the previous version: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E26502_01/html/E29007/gjxik.html#scrolltoc Any suggestions how to help OP read his data on anything but Solaris 11.1 or migrate it back a version? Jan ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] S11 vs illumos zfs compatiblity
Perhaps slightly elegant, you can do the new pool/rsync thing on the 11.1 live CD so you don't actually have to stand up a new system to do this. Assuming this is x86 and VirtualBox works on Illumos, you could fire up a VM to do this as well. Bob Sent from my iPhone On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:54 PM, Jan Owoc jso...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Bob Netherton bob.nether...@gmail.com wrote: On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:47 AM, Jan Owoc jso...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, that is correct. The last version of Solaris with source code used zpool version 28. This is the last version that is readable by non-Solaris operating systems FreeBSD, GNU/Linux, but also OpenIndiana. The filesystem, zfs, is technically at the same version, but you can't access it if you can't access the pool :-). That is a touch misleading. This has always been the case since S10u2. You have to create the pool AND the file systems at the oldest versions you want to support. I maintain a table of pool and version numbers on my blog (blogs.oracle. com/bobn) for this very purpose. I got lazy the other day and made this mistake between 11ga and 11.1. Watch the ZFS send approach because you might be sending a newer file system version than is supported. Yes, I've done that too :) Bob, you are correct. There is now a new version of zfs in Solaris 11.1. I assume it's incompatible with the previous version: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E26502_01/html/E29007/gjxik.html#scrolltoc Any suggestions how to help OP read his data on anything but Solaris 11.1 or migrate it back a version? Jan ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs_arc_max values
I'll agree with Bob on this. A specific use case is a VirtualBox server hosting lots of guests. I even made a point of mentioning this tunable in the Solaris 10 Virtualization Essentials section on vbox :) There are several other use cases as well. Bob Bob Sent from my iPad On May 17, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote: On Thu, 17 May 2012, Paul Kraus wrote: Why are you trying to tune the ARC as _low_ as possible? In my experience the ARC gives up memory readily for other uses. The only place I _had_ to tune the ARC in production was a couple systems running an app that checks for free memory _before_ trying to allocate it. If the ARC has all but 1 GB in use, the app (which is looking for On my system I adjusted the ARC down due to running user-space applications with very bursty short-term large memory usage. Reducing the ARC assured that there would be no contention between zfs ARC and the applications. 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 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] About ZFS compatibility
zhihui Chen wrote: I have created a pool on external storage with B114. Then I export this pool and import it on another system with B110.But this import will fail and show error: cannot import 'tpool': pool is formatted using a newer ZFS version. Any big change in ZFS with B114 leads to this compatibility issue? It's always a good idea to check out the release flag days to get an idea of the impacts of changes. http://opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/ This one stands out - http://opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/pages/2009041801/ which points to PSARC 2009/204 and the case materials at http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2009/204/20090330_matthew.ahrens give the reason for the version number bump. User quotas. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS/zpool Versions in Solaris 10
since I am trying to keep my pools at a version that different updates can handle, I personally am glad it did not get rev'ed. I did get into trouble recently that SX-CE 112 created a file system on an old pool with a version newer than Solaris 10 likes :( -o is your best friend ;-)I can now get rid of all of those pre-allocated filesystems that I used for just this purpose. Don't know where all of the corner cases are, but this appears to be a workaround. Just keep a table of the pool and filesystem versions for each release handy. # zpool create -o version=10 newpool c0d0s4 I did this on nv112 and . drum roll please .. it can be imported on Solaris 10. Same thing for ZFS. # zfs create -o version=1 rpool/legacy-file-system Also created on nv112 and also wait for it ... mountable and totally usable on Solaris 10 10/08. It's a beautiful thing. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to increase rpool size in a VM?
Bob Doolittle wrote: Blake wrote: You need to use 'installgrub' to get the right boot pits in place on your new disk. I did that, but it didn't help. I ran: installgrub /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c4t1d0s0 Is it OK to run this before resilvering has completed? You need to install GRUB in the master boot record (MBR). # installgrub -m boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c4t1d0s0 And yes, it is safe to do while the resilvering is happening. The master boot record is outside of the block range of your pool. Changing the boot order shouldn't be necessary (that's what findroot is supposed to help take care of). It should only be necessary if the new disk wasn't seen by the BIOS in the first place or for some reason isn't selected as part of the normal BIOS boot sequence. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
Multiple pools on one server only makes sense if you are going to have different RAS for each pool for business reasons. It's a lot easier to have a single pool though. I recommend it. A couple of other things to consider to go with that recommendation. - never build a pool larger than you are willing to restore. Bad things can still happen that would require you to restore the entire pool. Convenience and SLAs aren't always in agreement :-) The advances in ZFS availability might make me look at my worst case restore scenario a little different though - but there will still be a restore case that worries me. - as I look at the recent lifecycle improvements with zones (in the Solaris 10 context of zones), I really like upgrade on attach. That means I will be slinging zones more freely. So I need to design my pools to match that philosophy. - if you are using clustering technologies, pools will go hand in hand with failover boundaries. So if I have multiple failover zones, I will have multiple pools. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Virutal zfs server vs hardware zfs server
Bob is right. Less chance of failure perhaps but also less protection. I don't like it when my storage lies to me :) Bob Sent from my iPhone On Feb 27, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote: On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Blake wrote: SinceZFS is trying to checksum blocks, the fewer abstraction layers youhave in between ZFS and spinning rust, the less points oferror/failure. Are you saying that ZFS checksums are responsible for the failure? In what way does more layers of abstraction cause particular problems for ZFS which won't also occur with some other filesystem? 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 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Noob: Best way to replace a disk when you're out of internal connectors?
I am a bit slow today. It seems like a dying drive should be replaced ASAP. Completely agree with Bob on this. I drive an 8.000lb truck and the tires have industrial strength runflats. If I get a puncture or tear in a tire I replace it as soon as I can, not when it is convenient. The runflats get me out of the woods or down the street. Since you are running RAIDZ2 then the better analogy might be half-shafts, but you get the point. Since you are using RAIDZ2, replacing the drive as described above should not be a problem. Is the issue that your hardware does not support hot swap and this is not a good time to shut the system down? I would recommend a system maintenance window for failing hardware as soon as you can reasonably do it. You still have protection for your data, but a flaky drive needs to be replaced. Regarding the proposal to replace the drive with an external USB drive, this approach will surely work but since USB is only good for about 11 or 12MB/second, performance of the whole raidz2 vdev would surely suffer and writes would then be limited by USB speeds. It is likely to take quite a long time to resilver to the USB drive and if the filesystem is busy, maybe it will never catch up. It may perform better with the dying drive. Exactly. The analogy here is the space saver spare tire. use only as a last resort :-) Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpol mirror creation after non-mirrored zpool is setup
Jeff Bonwick wrote: On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 04:44:10PM -0800, Mark Dornfeld wrote: I have installed Solaris 10 on a ZFS filesystem that is not mirrored. Since I have an identical disk in the machine, I'd like to add that disk to the existing pool as a mirror. Can this be done, and if so, how do I do it? Yes: # zpool attach poolname old_disk new_disk And if you want to be able to boot off of the newly attached replica you might want to install a boot block on it. See http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-5166/installboot-1m # installboot -F zfs /usr/platform/`uname -i`/lib/fs/zfs/bootblk \ raw device of the replica ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragmentation with MySQL databases
This argument can be proven by basic statistics without need to resort to actual testing. Mathematical proof reality of how things end up getting used. Luckily, most data access is not completely random in nature. Which was my point exactly. I've never seen a purely mathematical model put in production anywhere :-) Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS fragmentation with MySQL databases
In other words, for random access across a working set larger (by say X%) than the SSD-backed L2 ARC, the cache is useless. This should asymptotically approach truth as X grows and experience shows that X=200% is where it's about 99% true. Ummm, before we throw around phrases like useless, how about a little testing ?I like a good academic argument just like the next guy, but before I dismiss something completely out of hand I'd like to see some data. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] copies set to greater than 1
On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 19:54 -0500, Krzys wrote: WHen property value copies is set to value greater than 1 how does it work? Will it store second copy of data on different disk? or does it store it on the same disk? Also when this setting is changed at some point on file system, will it make copies of existing data or just new data thats being written from now on? I have done this on my home directory the microsecond that it became available :-) It tries to make copies on multiple devices if it can. If not (as in my single disk laptop) it places both copies on the same disk. It will not duplicate any existing data, so it would be a good idea to do a zfs create -o copies=2 .. so that all of the data in the dataset will have some sort of replication from the beginning. df output reflects actual pool usage. # mkfile 300m f # ls -la total 1218860 drwxr-xr-x 2 bobn local 3 Nov 6 19:04 . drwxr-xr-x 81 bobn sys 214 Nov 6 19:04 .. -rw--- 1 bobn local314572800 Nov 6 19:04 f # du -h . 600M . Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Shared ZFS in Multi-boot?
On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 09:16 -0700, Daniel Templeton wrote: Is there a way that I can add the disk to a ZFS pool and have the ZFS pool accessible to all of the OS instances? I poked through the docs and searched around a bit, but I couldn't find anything on the topic. Yes. I do that all of the time. The trick here is to create the pool and filesystems with the oldest Solaris you will use. ZFS has very good backward compatibility but not the reverse. Here's a trick that will come in handy. Create quite a few empty ZFS filesystems in your oldest Solaris. In my case the pool is called throatwarbler and I have misc1 misc2 misc3 misc4 misc5 . What happens is that I will be running a newer Solaris and want a filesystem. Rather than reboot to the older Solaris, just rename misc[n] to the new name. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Checksum error: which of my files have failed scrubbing?
soren wrote: ZFS has detected that my root filesystem has a small number of errors. Is there a way to tell which specific files have been corrupted? After a scrub a zpool status -v should give you a list of files with unrecoverable errors. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] help me....
On Sun, 2008-08-03 at 20:46 -0700, Rahul wrote: hi can you give some disadvantages of the ZFS file system?? In what context ? Relative to what ? Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I trust ZFS?
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 13:25 -0700, Ross wrote: Hey folks, I guess this is an odd question to be asking here, but I could do with some feedback from anybody who's actually using ZFS in anger. ZFS in anger ? That's an interesting way of putting it :-) but I have some real concerns about whether I can really trust ZFS to keep my data alive if things go wrong. This is a big step for us, we're a 100% windows company and I'm really going out on a limb by pushing Solaris. I can appreciate how this could be considered a risk, especially if it is your idea. But let's put this all in perspective and you'll see why it isn't even remotely a question. I have put all sorts of file servers into production with things like Online Disk Suite 1.0, NFS V1 - and slept like a baby. Now, for the non-historians on the list, the quality of Online Disk Suite 1.0 led directly to the creation of the volume management marketplace and Veritas in particular (hey - that's a joke, OK but only marginally). The question is whether I can make a server I can be confident in. I'm now planning a very basic OpenSolaris server just using ZFS as a NFS server, is there anybody out there who can re-assure me that such a server can work well and handle real life drive failures? There are two questions in there - can it be built and are you comfortable with it. Those are two different things. The simple answer to the first is yes. Although if this is mission critical (and things like NFS servers generally are - even if they are only serving up iTunes music libraries - ask my daughter). Enda's point about the Marvell driver updates for Solaris 10 should be carefully considered. If it's just an NFS server then the vast majority of OpenSolaris benefits won't be applicable (newer GNOME, better packaging, better Linux interoperability, etc). Putting this one Solaris 10 with Live Upgrade and a service contract would make me sleep like a baby. Now, for the other question - if you are looking at this like an appliance then you might not be quite as happy. It does take a little care and feeding, but nearly every piece of technology more complicated than a toaster needs a little love every once in a while. I would much rather put a Solaris/ZFS file server into a Windows environment than a Windows file server into a Unix environment :-) Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I trust ZFS?
We haven't had any real life drive failures at work, but at home I took some old flaky IDE drives and put them in a pentium 3 box running Nevada. Similar story here. Some IDE and SATA drive burps under Linux (and please don't tell me how wonderful Reiser4 is - 'cause it's banned in this house forever agh) and Windows. It ate my entire iTunes library. Yeah, lurve that silent data corruption feature. Several of them were known to cause errors under Linux, so I mirrored them in approximately-the-same-size pairs and set up weekly scrubs. Two drives out of six failed entirely, and were nicely retired, before I gave up on the idea and bought new disks. Pretty cool, eh ? Finally, at work we're switching everything over to ZFS because it's so convenient... but we keep tape backups nonetheless. A very good idea. Disasters will still occur. With enough storage, snapshots can eliminate the routine file by file restores but a complete meltdown is always a possibility. So backups aren't optional, but I find myself doing very few restores any more. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SXCE build 90 vs S10U6?
I want to start testing out ZFS boot and zfs allow to minimize the delay between the release of U6 and my production deployment. Good observation. I mention this in every Solaris briefing that I do. Get some stick time with this capability using SXCE or OpenSolaris so that you can reduce the time it takes to deploy whatever upcoming Solaris update has ZFS root (how's that for being evasive). I said the same thing about ZULU before the s10 11/07 timeframe. I don't think so, unless you mean the new openSolaris distribution. I evaluated that, unfortunately it's not quite ready for production deployment in our environment. Out of curiosity, where did it miss the mark ? It is still very much work in progress, early adopter stuff, but what were the things that kept you from deploying it. Just curious. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs mount fails - directory not empty
Multi-boot system (s10u3, s10u4, and nevada84) having problems mounting ZFS filesystems at boot time. The pool is s10u3 are are most of the filesystems. A few of the filesystems are nevada83. # zfs mount -a cannot mount '/pandora': directory is not empty # zfs list -o name,mountpoint NAME MOUNTPOINT pandora /pandora pandora/domains /pandora/domains pandora/domains/fedora8 /pandora/domains/fedora8 pandora/domains/nv83a /pandora/domains/nv83a pandora/domains/s10u5 /pandora/domains/s10u5 pandora/domains/ub710 /pandora/domains/ub710 pandora/domains/winxp /pandora/domains/winxp pandora/export/export pandora/home /export/home pandora/home-restore legacy pandora/[EMAIL PROTECTED] - pandora/iso /export/iso All of the filesystems except the legacy and snapshots are mounted. The error return code is making filesystem/local really fussy, which makes booting really fussy, etc :-) I do notice that zfs umount is leaving the mountpoints behind. The other thing is more of a question. I understand why the ZFS filesystems created in nevada don't mount on s10. But should those cause mountall (and filesystem/local) to fail ? I guess I could do legacy mounts for all my xVM domains, but that seems un-ZFS like. Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: How does ZFS write data to disks?
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 09:00 -0700, lonny wrote: I've noticed a similar behavior in my writes. ZFS seems to write in bursts of around 5 seconds. I assume it's just something to do with caching? Yep - the ZFS equivalent of fsflush. Runs more often so the pipes don't get as clogged. We've had lots of rain here recently, so I'm sort of sensitive to stories of clogged pipes. Is this behavior ok? seems it would be better to have the disks writing the whole time instead of in bursts. Perhaps - although not in all cases (probably not in most cases). Wouldn't it be cool to actually do some nice sequential writes to the sweet spot of the disk bandwidth curve, but not depend on it so much that a single random I/O here and there throws you for a loop ? Human analogy - it's often more wise to work smarter than harder :-) Directly to your question - are you seeing any anomalies in file system read or write performance (bandwidth or latency) ? Bob ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
