Edward M eam1edw...@gmail.com wrote:
That reply was not meant for you, so why do you care?
If it wasn't meant for everyone on the list,
why was it sent to the list?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On 06/25/2012 08:00 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Edward M eam1edw...@gmail.com wrote:
That reply was not meant for you, so why do you care?
If it wasn't meant for everyone on the list,
why was it sent to the list?
by accident. still learning how to use email client:-[ . once
On 06/23/2012 10:38 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
last binary production ready, used version 14; i also found it
to be stable
Any opensource zfs pool verisons beyound that, i am not really sure
about their stablity compared
to UFS rock solid filesystem.
No ZFS pool version can be as
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
One interesting feature of ZFS if it's block checksum: all reads and
writes include block checksum, so it can easily detect situations where,
for example, data is quietly corrupted by RAM.
you may be
On 06/24/2012 04:23 PM, Adam Vande More wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Edward M eam1edw...@gmail.com
mailto:eam1edw...@gmail.com wrote:
Dont email me privately.
Don't be an ass. Standard list conventions allows for private email.
If this is simply an individual case of not
I meant, is it now possible to have 2TB FS with UFS?
On 6/21/2012 6:54 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
What options are there for 2TB
I meant, is it now possible to have 2TB FS with UFS?
UFS2 is here since IMHO year 2005.
Now the only problem is fsck time.
actually IMHO fsck can be improved a lot but someone must have time and
will to do this. if parallelism would be exploited on gstripe type(*)
volumes then it should
Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
I meant, is it now possible to have 2TB FS with UFS?
Yes. The 2TB limitation so many are used to applies more to the tools than
the UFS2 file system itself. UFS2 has a max volume size of 2^73, or 8
Zeta-Bytes. If you utilize the old Dos MBR scheme with old fdisk and
However, fsck'ing such large volumes will take considerable time if such a
thing needs doing. There is the new Soft-update plus Journaling coming
along with the advent of 9.x, which is supposed to ameliorate this. Not
it is far from perfect. But fine to use it.
Just DO full fsck every some
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Sat Jun 23 02:48:26 2012
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:17:13 +0430
From: Hooman Fazaeli hoomanfaza...@gmail.com
To: Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Is ZFS production ready
On 06/21/2012 12:33 AM, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
Now, I want to the same thing on 8.3 and wanted to know
your opinion on ZFS stability. Is there any success story using
ZFS in 24x7, large volume, heavy duty servers? Is there any
other option other than ZFS to build larger than 2TB file systems?
On 06/23/2012 04:19 PM, Edward M wrote:
On 06/21/2012 12:33 AM, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
Now, I want to the same thing on 8.3 and wanted to know
your opinion on ZFS stability. Is there any success story using
ZFS in 24x7, large volume, heavy duty servers? Is there any
other option other than ZFS
snafu on my part freebsd 8.3 also uses zfs pool version 28:-)
No, 8.3 uses version 15. It's been quite stable for me.
R's,
John
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To
snafu on my part freebsd 8.3 also uses zfs pool version 28:-)
No, 8.3 uses version 15. It's been quite stable for me.
Sorry, I misread my notes, 8.2 uses v 15, 8.3 uses v 28.
R's,
John
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On 06/23/2012 05:16 PM, John Levine wrote:
Sorry, I misread my notes, 8.2 uses v 15, 8.3 uses v 28.
R's,
John
yeah, I remember version 15 was really stable. Opensolaris 2009.06
last binary production ready, used version 14; i also found it to
be stable
Any opensource zfs pool
This is a valid argument. Checksumming is used to detect cases where the
disk or the disk controller return invalid data to the CPU. This can happen
for any number of reasons and isn't that unlikely. Unrecoverable read
error probabilities are high enough with common drives that you can
OK, if you have 24 2-way mirrors and two drives in the same mirror fail
then with UFS you lose the contents of that mirror. Other filesystems in
the same box are fine. Restores from backups are going to be easy since
the backups are probably arranged to be per-filesystem.
true. i actually don't
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 06:18:56 2012
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:03:12 +0430
From: Hooman Fazaeli hoomanfaza...@gmail.com
To: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Is ZFS production ready?
Dear community
In the past, I built a 8TB ZFS log
Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:`
Subject: Re: Is ZFS production ready?
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
Be sure to descrirbe how that is even _possible_, given that the OP needs/
wants larger than 2tb filesystems
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jun 21 11:50:42 2012
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:47:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
To: Matthias Gamsjager mgamsja...@gmail.com
Cc: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Is ZFS production
Dear community
In the past, I built a 8TB ZFS log server on freebsd 7.4.
However, the system experienced instablility after long up times.
My main motive to use ZFS was UFS inability to support large
file systems.
Now, I want to the same thing on 8.3 and wanted to know
your opinion on ZFS
Hi,
I think it is stable enough on FreeBSD.
Someone actually posted quite a similar thread not a while ago..
Here'e a quick summary:
For my various OpenSource projects, I have deployed a 36TB file system
which is fine and stable running 24/7. Additionally at home I use 4TB
(2x 2TB) + 8TB
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
The correct answer would be. I depends on the work load
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
21.06.2012 15:52, Wojciech Puchar пишет:
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
For my various OpenSource projects, I have deployed a 36TB file system
which is fine and stable running 24/7. Additionally at home I use 4TB
(2x 2TB) + 8TB (2x 4TB) on a machine with 4GB RAM this has been up
for 3 years with minimum reboot!
Good. There are some companies that make for
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
The correct answer would be. I depends on the work load
For different kinds of production workload it doesn't, aat least for me.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Hooman Fazaeli hoomanfaza...@gmail.comwrote:
Dear community
In the past, I built a 8TB ZFS log server on freebsd 7.4.
However, the system experienced instablility after long up times.
My main motive to use ZFS was UFS inability to support large
file
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
For my various OpenSource projects, I have deployed a 36TB file system
which is fine and stable running 24/7. Additionally at home I use 4TB
(2x 2TB) + 8TB (2x 4TB) on a machine with 4GB RAM this has
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 12:03 +0430, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
Dear community
In the past, I built a 8TB ZFS log server on freebsd 7.4.
However, the system experienced instablility after long up times.
My main motive to use ZFS was UFS inability to support large
file systems.
Now, I want to
On 21.06.2012 07:39, Dennis Glatting wrote:
Stable? Yes. Be sure you have up-to-date FreeBSD kernel and your HBA
firmware is up-to-date. Generally I use LSI 9211 cards.
Does the 9211 support JBOD (complete plain disks, no RAID or single
disk RAID mess)?
System 1: 32 cores, Interlagos, 64GB, 18TB RAIDz1
System 2: 64 cores, Interlagos, 128GB, 15TB RAIDz1
System 3: 8 cores, Bulldozer, 16GB, 27TB RAIDz2
what these systems do? (no details, just rough information)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing
I really want to see your face when you fsck 48TB w/o ffs+j (since that is
so young must be immature :S ) of data with the phone ring non stop with
Even if ZFS would be the only filesystem in existence i would make one per
2 disks (single mirror).
No matter what's going on, what do you
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
I really want to see your face when you fsck 48TB w/o ffs+j (since that is
so young must be immature :S ) of data with the phone ring non stop with
Even if ZFS would be the only filesystem in existence i
On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
What options are there for 2TB file systems with UFS?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
answer yourself.
Sorry but I don;t follow you right there. with 48 disks you would not mirror
24vs24.
if i wasn't clear enough then i would it like that (with UFS), and
assuming disks are named disk0disk48, and that i have at least one
more disk for system code, often acessed data etc
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
What options are there for 2TB file systems with UFS?
the same as for 2TB filesystems.
One interesting feature of ZFS if it's block checksum: all reads and
writes include block checksum, so it can easily detect situations where,
for example, data is quietly corrupted by RAM.
This feature is very important for databases.
On 06/21/2012 15:58, Matthias Gamsjager wrote:
On Thu, Jun
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
answer yourself.
Sorry but I don;t follow you right there. with 48 disks you would not
mirror 24vs24.
if i wasn't clear enough then i would it like that (with UFS), and
assuming disks are named
On 06/21/2012 16:13, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
What options are there for 2TB file systems with UFS?
this should not be a problem if you use GPT + gpart (which is the way to
go
At 16:13 21/06/2012, you wrote:
On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
What options are there for 2TB file systems with UFS?
With UFS2 you can use file systems up to 2^73 (8 ZB). The problem is
not UFS, but the old
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 07:55 -0500, wel...@excelsusphoto.com wrote:
On 21.06.2012 07:39, Dennis Glatting wrote:
Stable? Yes. Be sure you have up-to-date FreeBSD kernel and your HBA
firmware is up-to-date. Generally I use LSI 9211 cards.
Does the 9211 support JBOD (complete plain
One interesting feature of ZFS if it's block checksum: all reads and writes
include block checksum, so it can easily detect situations where, for
example, data is quietly corrupted by RAM.
you may be shocked but you are sometimes wrong. i already demostrated it
and checksumming doesn't get
interesting idea but the options ZFS would give you are superior to this
setup.
Were you just unable to understand my setup or a reasons to do this?
please reread former post and possibly ask again if you don't understand
the reasons.
I ignore performance issues completely for now.
But
With UFS2 you can use file systems up to 2^73 (8 ZB). The problem is not UFS,
but the old tools used to format the disk like fdisk and bsdlabel. For big
file systems you must use gpart.
true. or not using anything at all (and put filesystem directly on whole
device/mirror).
The problem with
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
interesting idea but the options ZFS would give you are superior to this
setup.
Were you just unable to understand my setup or a reasons to do this?
please reread former post and possibly ask again
I do understand your setup but I dont have too agree that it is a good
so i would repeat my question.
Assume you have 48 disks, in mirrored configuration (24 mirrors) and 480
users with their data on them.
Your solution with ZFS - ZFS crashes or you get double disk failure.
Assuming the
On 21.06.2012 10:15, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
I do understand your setup but I dont have too agree that it is a
good
so i would repeat my question.
Assume you have 48 disks, in mirrored configuration (24 mirrors) and
480 users with their data on them.
Your solution with ZFS - ZFS crashes or
I think it is incorrect to assume that a failure with ZFS that cannot be
recovered could be recovered if you used UFS with fsck.
i think it is incorrect to not read carefully.
So explanation - ZFS failure NOT caused by disks failure cannot be usually
recovered.
But even if i am wrong at
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:42:55 -0500, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
And it is truly funny for me to know people do think this way.
If you understood how ZFS commits data to disk you'd not be making these
statements. Also, if you take snapshots you can just roll
On 21 jun. 2012, at 17:15, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
wrote:
I do understand your setup but I dont have too agree that it is a good
so i would repeat my question.
Assume you have 48 disks, in mirrored configuration (24 mirrors) and 480
users with their data on
Another important point:
With 24 ZFS mirrors you'd have your data being striped across ALL the
mirrors. This will yield much better performance.
i though already after few mails that you can discuss things normally.
But this reply just perfectly proves you didn't read more than maybe my
stupid answer to stupid question.
You never seen - but they do happens.
In other topic you hammerd on fact and if someone ask you to deliver them its
a stupid question.
just a proof it is a waste of time to explain things (FOR FREE) for people
like you.
You are free to make dangerous
Wojciech == Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl writes:
Wojciech I ignore performance issues completely for now.
An ironic line, given your complaints about clang.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
mer...@stonehenge.com
On 21 jun. 2012, at 18:07, Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
wrote:
stupid answer to stupid question.
You never seen - but they do happens.
In other topic you hammerd on fact and if someone ask you to deliver them
its a stupid question.
just a proof it is a waste of time
On 2012-06-21 08:12, Евгений Лактанов wrote:
21.06.2012 15:52, Wojciech Puchar пишет:
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
True but this applies as much to you. You think you know it all and that is
quite the probdlem with you.
And discussing with you is a true waste with this attittute. Even its free.
so stop it.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
his interactions on several topics.
ZFS is stable and tested, and works well if you have the resources. That
means RAM as well as hard disks - and if you don't have the resources, most
of ZFS's advantages wouldn't be coming into play anyway. I have seen no
right. repeat it more times, as
[...]
My one note to the above would be to advise against using it for swap
- unless you have enough RAM to make sure you never swap. It doesn't
do well in that role, in my experience. (Though that was under a
slightly earlier version.)
I remember on SXCE running on my test Sun E420r
ZFS is superior to UFS. End of the history.
There is no point in use old technology (UFS) when the new one can make the
same as the older and better ?
Regards,
El 21/06/12 11:31, Matthias Gamsjager escribió:
On 21 jun. 2012, at 18:07, Wojciech Puchar
On 6/21/12 9:47 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
True but this applies as much to you. You think you know it all and
that is quite the probdlem with you.
And discussing with you is a true waste with this attittute. Even
its free.
so stop it.
This mailing list isn't your blog. If you want to
ZFS is superior to UFS. End of the history.
There is no point in use old technology (UFS) when the new one can make the
same as the older and better ?
anyway there must be morons here like me that after observation conclude
that older is far safer and better.
But if you want end of history
On 06/21/2012 00:33, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
Dear community
In the past, I built a 8TB ZFS log server on freebsd 7.4.
However, the system experienced instablility after long up times.
My main motive to use ZFS was UFS inability to support large
file systems.
Now, I want to the same thing on
Agreed. Wojciech Puchar is in my 'probable troll' file at this point,
Here too, http://berklix.com/~jhs/dots/.procmailrc.lists
Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com
Reply below not above, cumulative like a play script, indent with
Agreed. Wojciech Puchar is in my 'probable troll' file at this point,
Here too, http://berklix.com/~jhs/dots/.procmailrc.lists
very good. just block me, instead of performing aggresive replies and
personal attacks.
___
21.06.2012 21:32, Wojciech Puchar пишет:
Agreed. Wojciech Puchar is in my 'probable troll' file at this point,
Here too, http://berklix.com/~jhs/dots/.procmailrc.lists
very good. just block me, instead of performing aggresive replies and
personal attacks.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Only after you, my man, only after you.
not yours. i'm not
On 6/21/12 11:21 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Only after you, my man,
ZFS is technologically more advance than UFS/UFS2, so, if someone ask to me
which filesystem should be use, my answer is ZFS.
You can do on UFS the same on ZFS, but ZFS extend the functionality beyond
filesystem, that is a plus for IT today.
I'm using ZFS for a public HTTP/FTP mirror pushing
69 matches
Mail list logo
