[zfs-discuss] state of zfs pool shrinking
Just wanted to ask how we make progress with zpool shrinking? Are there any prerequisite projects we are waiting on? e.g. tracked by CR 4852783 reduce pool capacity Thomas -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
pool-shrinking (and an option to shrink disk A when i want disk B to become a mirror, but A is a few blocks bigger) This may be interesting... I'm not sure how often you need to shrink a pool though? Could this be classified more as a Home or SME level feature? Enterprise level especially in SAN environments need this. Projects own theyr own pools and constantly grow and *shrink* space. And they have no downtime available for that. give a +1 if you agree Thomas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
I would really add : make insane zfs destroy -r| poolname as harmless as zpool destroy poolname (recoverable) zfs destroy -r| poolname|/filesystem this should behave like that: o snapshot the filesystem to be deleted (each, name it @deletedby_operatorname_date) o hide the snapshot as long as the pool has enough space and property snapshotbeforedelete=on (default off) is set 'on' o free space by removing those snapshots no earlier then configured in a inheritable pool/filesystem property snapshotbeforedeleteremoval=3days (=0 preserve forever, 30min preserve for 30 minutes, ...) o prevent deletion of a pool or filesystem if at least one snapshot from the above save actions exists down the tree o purging of snapshots would be done by To be honest, I don't want a discussion like the rm -rf is one. In front of the keyboard or inside scripts we are all humans with all theyr mistakes. In opposite to the rm -rf, the ZFS Design should take this extension without major changes. It should be a generic rule of dump to implement safety if it is possible at resonable low cost. I think the full range of users, Enterprise to Home will appreciate that theyr multi-million-$$-business/home_data does not go down accidentially with the interactive=on (Bryan) or the the idea written here. This in case someone makes an error and all the data could still be there (!)...ZFS should protect the user as well and not only look at the hardware redundancy. Thomas PS: think of the day where simple operator $NAME makes a typo zfs destroy -r poolname and all the data still sits on the disk. But no one is able to bring that valueable data back, except restoration from tape with hours of downtime. Sorry for repeating that, it hurts so much to not having this feature. On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 04:35:05AM -0500, Bryan Allen wrote: I for one would like an interactive attribute for zpools and filesystems, specifically for destroy. The existing behavior (no prompt) could be the default, but all filesystems would inherit from the zpool's attrib. so I'd only need to set interactive=on for the pool itself, not for each filesystem. I have yet (in almost two years of using ZFS) to bone myself by accidentally destroying tank/worthmorethanyourjob, but it's only a matter of time, regardless of how careful I am. The argument rm vs zfs destroy doesn't hold much water to me. I don't use rm -i, but destroying a single file or a hierarchy of directories is somewhat different than destroying a filesytem or entire pool. At least to my mind. As such, consider it a piece of mind feature. -- bda Cyberpunk is dead. Long live cyberpunk. http://mirrorshades.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Thomas Wagner +49-171-6135989 http://www.wagner-net.net ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best option for my home file server?
sliceing say S0 to be used as root-filesystem would make ZFS not using the write-buffer on the disks. This would be a slight performance degrade, but would increate reliability of the system (since root is mirrored). Why not living on the edge and booting from ZFS ? This would nearly eliminate UFS. Use e.g. the two 500GB Disks for the root-filesystem on a mirrored pool: mirror X Z here lives the OS with it's root-Filesystem on ZFS *and* userdata in the same pool raidz A B C D or any other layout or User zwo of the 250GB ones: pool boot-and-userdata-one mirror A B here lives the OS and userdata-one pool userdata-two mirror C D userdata-two spanning CD - XY mirror X Y Thomas On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 08:39:40PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote: On 26/09/2007, Christopher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm about to build a fileserver and I think I'm gonna use OpenSolaris and ZFS. I've got a 40GB PATA disk which will be the OS disk, Would be nice to remove that as a SPOF. I know ZFS likes whole disks, but I wonder how much would performance suffer if you SVMed up the first few Gb of a ZFS mirror pair for your root fs? I did it this week on Solaris 10 and it seemed to work pretty well ( http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/09/27/solaris-10-on-mirrored-disks ) Roll on ZFS root :) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS raid is very slow???
Orvar, around 50 to 60 MB/sec I've seen when zwo disks are writing and around 100MB/s when reading round-robin. The limiting faktor has been the old PCI-Bus (*not* 32-Bit slot length) and in another test the 1-lane PCI-X bus. (Sil680/SIL3124-2 and SIL3132 Chip) So if you can see the difference being faktor 2 between reading and writing when using a 1:1 mirror setup, I would say, you hit the bottleneck of your PCI-Bus. Thomas On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 03:37:06AM -0700, Orvar Korvar wrote: I did that, and here are the results from the ZFS jury: bash-3.00$ timex dd if=/dev/zero of=file bs=128k count=8192 8192+0 records in 8192+0 records out real 19.40 user 0.01 sys1.54 That is, 1GB created on 20sec = 50MB/sec. That is better, but still not good, as each drive of the four drives are capable of 50MB/sec. However, I can not achieve 50MB/sec in normal use. Strange. I will presume that the numbers get better when I upgrade to 64bit. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, Thomas Wagner -- * Thomas WagnerTel:+49-(0)-711-720 98-131 Strategic Support Engineer Fax:+49-(0)-711-720 98-443 Global Customer Services Cell: +49-(0)-175-292 60 64 Sun Microsystems GmbHE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zettachring 10A, D-70567 Stuttgart http://www.sun.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] mkdir == zfs create
(And if you don't need it to work remotely automount could take care of it if you think cd should be sufficient reason to create a directory) Maybe on unmount empty filesystems could be destroyed. more general? If we have events like a library-call to mkdir or change-dir or no open filedescriptors or ünmount, then operator-predefined actions will be triggered. Actions like zfs create rulebased-name, take a snapshot or zsend on a snapshot and others could be thought of. Thomas -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS imported simultanously on 2 systems...
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 12:28:23PM +0200, Michael Schuster wrote: Mathias F wrote: Well, we are using the -f parameter to test failover functionality. If one system with mounted ZFS is down, we have to use the force to mount it on the failover system. But when the failed system comes online again, it remounts the ZFS without errors, so it is mounted simultanously on both nodes This is used on a regularly basis within cluster frameworks... ZFS currently doesn't support this, I'm sorry to say. *You* have to make sure that a zpool is not imported on more than one node at a time. Why not using a real cluster-software as *You*, taking care of using resources like a filesystem (ufs, zfs, others...) in a consistent way? I think ZFS does enough to make shure not accidentially using filesystems/pools from more then one hosts at a time. If you want more, please consider using a cluster-framework with heartbeats and all that great stuff ... Regards, Thomas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ?: ZFS and jumpstart export race condition
Steffen, I have the same with my home-installserver. As a dirty solution I set mount-at-boot to no for the lofs Filesystems, to get the system up. But with every new OS added by JET the mount at reboot reappears. Seems to me as the question when should a lofs filesystem be mounted at boot. When does a zfs filesystem get mounted? Probably a zfs legacy mount together with a lower priority lofs mount would do it. Regards, Thomas On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 08:18:06AM -0400, Steffen Weiberle wrote: I have a jumpstart server where the install images are on a ZFS pool. For PXE boot, several lofs mounts are created and configured in /etc/vfstab. My system does not boot properly anymore because the mounts referring to jumstart files haven't been mounted yet via ZFS. What is the best way of working around this? Can I just create the necessary mounts of pool1/jumpstart in /etc/vfstab, or is ZFS just not running yet when these mounts get attempted? A lot of network services, including ssh, are not running because fs-local did not come up clean. Is this a know problem that is being addressed? This is S10 6/06. Thanks Steffen # cat /etc/vfstab ... /export/jumpstart/s10/x86/boot - /tftpboot/I86PC.Solaris_10-1 lofs - yes ro /export/jumpstart/nv/x86/latest/boot - /tftpboot/I86PC.Solaris_11-1 lofs - yes ro /export/jumpstart/s10u3/x86/latest/boot - /tftpboot/I86PC.Solaris_10-2 lofs - yes ro # zfs get all pool1/jumpstart NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE pool1/jumpstart type filesystem - pool1/jumpstart creation Mon Jun 12 8:26 2006 - pool1/jumpstart used 39.9G - pool1/jumpstart available 17.7G - pool1/jumpstart referenced 39.9G - pool1/jumpstart compressratio 1.00x - pool1/jumpstart mountedyes- pool1/jumpstart quota none default pool1/jumpstart reservationnone default pool1/jumpstart recordsize 128K default pool1/jumpstart mountpoint /export/jumpstart local pool1/jumpstart sharenfs ro,anon=0 local pool1/jumpstart checksum on default pool1/jumpstart compressionoffdefault pool1/jumpstart atime on default pool1/jumpstart deviceson default pool1/jumpstart exec on default pool1/jumpstart setuid on default pool1/jumpstart readonly offdefault pool1/jumpstart zoned offdefault pool1/jumpstart snapdirhidden default pool1/jumpstart aclmodegroupmask default pool1/jumpstart aclinherit secure default ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, Thomas Wagner -- * Thomas WagnerTel:+49-(0)-711-720 98-131 Strategic Support Engineer Fax:+49-(0)-711-720 98-443 Global Customer Services Cell: +49-(0)-175-292 60 64 Sun Microsystems GmbHE-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zettachring 10A, D-70567 Stuttgart http://www.sun.de ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
