In that case, this may be a much tougher nut to crack than I thought.
I'll be the first to admit that other than having seen a few presentations I
don't have a clue about the details of how ZFS works under the hood, however...
You mention that moving the old block means updating all it's
Christian Kelly 写道:
Hi Calum,
heh, as it happens, I was tinkering with pygtk to see how difficult this
would be :)
Supposing I have a ZFS on my machine called root/export/home which is
mounted on /export/home. Then I have my home dir as /export/home/chris.
Say I only want to
Time Machine is storing all in the system by default, but you still can
select some ones that you don't like to store. And Time Machine don't
use ZFS.
Here we will use ZFS snapshot, and what it's working with is file
system. In Nevada, the default file system is not ZFS, it means some
...
My understanding of ZFS (in short: an upside down
tree) is that each block is referenced by it's
parent. So regardless of how many snapshots you take,
each block is only ever referenced by one other, and
I'm guessing that the pointer and checksum are both
stored there.
If that's the
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 13:35 +, Christian Kelly wrote:
What I'm suggesting is that the configuration presents a list of pools
and their ZFSes and that you have a checkbox, backup/don't backup sort
of an option.
That's basically the (hacked-up) zenity GUI I have at the moment on my
blog,
Hmm... that's a pain if updating the parent also means updating the parent's
checksum too. I guess the functionality is there for moving bad blocks, but
since that's likely to be a rare occurence, it wasn't something that would need
to be particularly efficient.
With regards sharing the disk
On 20 Nov 2007, at 12:56, Christian Kelly wrote:
Hi Calum,
heh, as it happens, I was tinkering with pygtk to see how difficult
this would be :)
Supposing I have a ZFS on my machine called root/export/home which
is mounted on /export/home. Then I have my home dir as /export/home/
Calum Benson wrote:
Right, for Phase 0 the thinking was that you'd really have to manually
set up whatever pools and filesystems you required first. So in your
example, you (or, perhaps, the Indiana installer) would have had to
set up /export/home/chris/Documents as a ZFS filesystem in its
So there is no current way to specify the creation of
a 3 disk raid-z
array with a known missing disk?
Can someone answer that? Or does the zpool command NOT accommodate the
creation of a degraded raidz array?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
...
With regards sharing the disk resources with other
programs, obviously it's down to the individual
admins how they would configure this,
Only if they have an unconstrained budget.
but I would
suggest that if you have a database with heavy enough
requirements to be suffering noticable
On 20 Nov 2007, at 13:35, Christian Kelly wrote:
Take the example I gave before, where you have a pool called, say,
pool1. In the pool you have two ZFSes: pool1/export and pool1/
export/home. So, suppose the user chooses /export in nautilus and
adds this to the backup list. Will the
Louwtjie Burger wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
- COW probably makes that conflict worse
This needs to be proven with a reproducible, real-world
workload before it
makes sense to try to solve it. After all, if we cannot
measure where
we are,
how can we prove that we've
doing these writes now sounds like a
lot of work. I'm guessing that needing two full-path
updates to achieve this means you're talking about a
much greater write penalty.
Not all that much. Each full-path update is still
only a single write request to the disk, since all
the path
On Nov 20, 2007 1:48 AM, Louwtjie Burger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is still 256MB/s . I am getting about 194MB/s
No, I don't think you can take 2Gbit / 8bits per byte and say 256MB is
what you should get...
Someone with far more FC knowledge can comment here. There must be
some
On Nov 20, 2007 7:01 AM, Chad Mynhier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/20/07, Asif Iqbal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007 1:43 AM, Louwtjie Burger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 9:40 PM, Asif Iqbal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Including storage-discuss)
I have 6
Calum Benson wrote:
On 20 Nov 2007, at 13:35, Christian Kelly wrote:
Take the example I gave before, where you have a pool called, say,
pool1. In the pool you have two ZFSes: pool1/export and pool1/
export/home. So, suppose the user chooses /export in nautilus and
adds this to the backup
On 11/20/07, Asif Iqbal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 20, 2007 7:01 AM, Chad Mynhier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/20/07, Asif Iqbal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007 1:43 AM, Louwtjie Burger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 9:40 PM, Asif Iqbal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rats - I was right the first time: there's a messy problem with snapshots.
The problem is that the parent of the child that you're about to update in
place may *already* be in one or more snapshots because one or more of its
*other* children was updated since each snapshot was created. If so,
Resilver and scrub are broken and restart when a snapshot is created -- the
current workaround is to disable snaps while resilvering, the ZFS team is
working on the issue for a long term fix.
-Wade
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/20/2007 09:58:19 AM:
On b66:
# zpool replace tww
Hello all...
I think all of you agree that performance is a great topic in NFS.
So, when we talk about NFS and ZFS we imagine a great combination/solution.
But one is not dependent on another, actually are two well distinct
technologies. ZFS has a lot of features that all we know about, and
And, just to add one more point, since pretty much everything the host
writes to the controller eventually has to make it out to the disk
drives, the long term average write rate cannot exceed the rate that
the backend disk subsystem can absorb the writes, regardless of the
workload. (An
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:01:49AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Resilver and scrub are broken and restart when a snapshot is created
-- the current workaround is to disable snaps while resilvering,
the ZFS team is working on the issue for a long term fix.
But, no snapshot was taken. If so,
On 20 Nov 2007, at 15:04, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Calum Benson wrote:
On 20 Nov 2007, at 13:35, Christian Kelly wrote:
Take the example I gave before, where you have a pool called,
say, pool1. In the pool you have two ZFSes: pool1/export and
pool1/ export/home. So, suppose the user
On 20 Nov 2007, at 14:31, Christian Kelly wrote:
Ah, I see. So, for phase 0, the 'Enable Automatic Snapshots' option
would only be available for/work for existing ZFSes. Then at some
later
stage, create them on the fly.
Yes, that's the scenario for the mockups I posted, anyway... if the
Calum Benson wrote:
You're right that they can, and while that probably does write it off,
I wonder how many really do. (And we could possibly do something clever
like a semi-opaque overlay anyway, we may not have to replace the
background entirely.)
Almost everyone I've seen using the
On Nov 19, 2007 10:08 PM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Cone wrote:
Hello All,
Here's a possibly-silly proposal from a non-expert.
Summarising the problem:
- there's a conflict between small ZFS record size, for good random
update performance, and large ZFS record
But the whole point of snapshots is that they don't
take up extra space on the disk. If a file (and
hence a block) is in every snapshot it doesn't mean
you've got multiple copies of it. You only have one
copy of that block, it's just referenced by many
snapshots.
I used the wording copies
But the whole point of snapshots is that they don't take up extra space on the
disk. If a file (and hence a block) is in every snapshot it doesn't mean
you've got multiple copies of it. You only have one copy of that block, it's
just referenced by many snapshots.
The thing is, the location
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Calum Benson
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:12 AM
To: Darren J Moffat
Cc: Henry Zhang; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; Desktop discuss; Christian
Kelly
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] [desktop-discuss] ZFS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/20/2007 10:11:50 AM:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:01:49AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Resilver and scrub are broken and restart when a snapshot is created
-- the current workaround is to disable snaps while resilvering,
the ZFS team is working on the issue
Is there a preferred method to test a raidz2.
I would like to see the the disks recover on there own after simulating
a disk failure.
I'm have a 4 disk configuration.
Brian.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Nov 20, 2007 5:33 PM, can you guess? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the whole point of snapshots is that they don't
take up extra space on the disk. If a file (and
hence a block) is in every snapshot it doesn't mean
you've got multiple copies of it. You only have one
copy of that
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:10:20AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/20/2007 10:11:50 AM:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:01:49AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Resilver and scrub are broken and restart when a snapshot is created
-- the current workaround is to
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Paul Boven wrote:
I seem to be having exactly the problems you are describing (see my
postings with the subject 'zfs on a raid box'). So I would very much
like to give b77 a try. I'm currently running b76, as that's the latest
sxce that's available.
comment on retries below...
Paul Boven wrote:
Hi Eric, everyone,
Eric Schrock wrote:
There have been many improvements in proactively detecting failure,
culminating in build 77 of Nevada. Earlier builds:
- Were unable to distinguish device removal from devices misbehaving,
depending
I have an Intel based server running dual P3 Xeons (Intel A46044-609, 1.26GHz)
with a BIOS from American Megatrends Inc (AMIBIOS, SCB2 production BIOS rev
2.0, BIOS build 0039) with 2GB of RAM
when I attempt to install snv-76 the system panics during the initial boot from
CD
I've been using
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ross wrote:
doing these writes now sounds like a
lot of work. I'm guessing that needing two full-path
updates to achieve this means you're talking about a
much greater write penalty.
Not all that much. Each full-path update is still
only a single write request to the
Bill Moloney wrote:
I have an Intel based server running dual P3 Xeons (Intel A46044-609,
1.26GHz) with a BIOS from American Megatrends Inc (AMIBIOS, SCB2
production BIOS rev 2.0, BIOS build 0039) with 2GB of RAM
when I attempt to install snv-76 the system panics during the initial
boot
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 02:18:21PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote:
Right now I have noticed that LSI has recently began offering some
lower-budget stuff; specifically I am looking at the MegaRAID SAS
8208ELP/XLP, which are very reasonably priced.
I
On Nov 20, 2007 10:40 AM, Andrew Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What kind of workload are you running. If you are you doing these
measurements with some sort of write as fast as possible microbenchmark,
Oracle database with blocksize 16K .. populating the database as fast I can
once the 4
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 02:01:34PM -0600, Al Hopper wrote:
a) the SuperMicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 is an 8-port SATA card available for
around $110 IIRC.
Yeah, I'd like to spend a lot less than that, especially as I only need
2 ports. :)
b) There is also a PCI-X version of the older LSI 4-port
the 3124 looks perfect. The only problem is the only thing I found on ebay
was for the 3132, which is PCIe, which doesn't help me. :) I'm not finding
anything for 3124 other than the data on silicon image's site. Do you know
of any cards I should be looking for that uses this chip?
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Jason P. Warr wrote:
the 3124 looks perfect. The only problem is the only thing I found on ebay
was for the 3132, which is PCIe, which doesn't help me. :) I'm not finding
anything for 3124 other than the data on silicon image's site. Do you know
of any cards I should
Asif Iqbal wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007 11:47 PM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Asif Iqbal wrote:
I have the following layout
A 490 with 8 1.8Ghz and 16G mem. 6 6140s with 2 FC controllers using
A1 anfd B1 controller port 4Gbps speed.
Each controller has 2G NVRAM
On 6140s I
So I have 8 drives total.
5x500GB seagate 7200.10
3x300GB seagate 7200.10
I'm trying to decide, would I be better off just creating two separate pools?
pool1 = 5x500gb raidz
pool2= 3x300gb raidz
or would I be better off creating one large pool, with two raid sets? I'm
trying to figure out
Brian Lionberger wrote:
Is there a preferred method to test a raidz2.
I would like to see the the disks recover on there own after simulating
a disk failure.
I'm have a 4 disk configuration.
It really depends on what failure mode you're interested in. The
most common failure we see from
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Tim Cook wrote:
So I have 8 drives total.
5x500GB seagate 7200.10
3x300GB seagate 7200.10
I'm trying to decide, would I be better off just creating two separate pools?
pool1 = 5x500gb raidz
pool2= 3x300gb raidz
... reformatted ...
or would I be better off creating
the 3124 looks perfect. The only problem is the only thing I found on
ebay
was for the 3132, which is PCIe, which doesn't help me. :) I'm not
finding
anything for 3124 other than the data on silicon image's site. Do you
know
of any cards I should be looking for that uses this chip?
Well then this is probably the wrong list to be hounding
I am looking for something like
http://blog.wpkg.org/2007/10/26/stale-nfs-file-handle/
Where when fileserver A dies, fileserver B can come up, grab the same
IP address via some mechanism(in this case I am using sun cluster) and
keep on
asa wrote:
Well then this is probably the wrong list to be hounding
I am looking for something like
http://blog.wpkg.org/2007/10/26/stale-nfs-file-handle/
Where when fileserver A dies, fileserver B can come up, grab the same
IP address via some mechanism(in this case I am using sun
On the other hand, the pool of 3 disks is obviously
going to be much slower than the pool of 5
while today that's true, someday io will be
balanced by the latency of vdevs rather than
the number... plus two vdevs are always going
to be faster than one vdev, even if one is slower
than the
I am rolling my own replication using zfs send|recv through the
cluster agent framework and a custom HA shared local storage set of
scripts(similar to http://www.posix.brte.com.br/blog/?p=75 but
without avs). I am not using zfs off of shared storage in the
supported way. So this is a bit
On Nov 20, 2007 6:34 AM, MC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So there is no current way to specify the creation of
a 3 disk raid-z
array with a known missing disk?
Can someone answer that? Or does the zpool command NOT accommodate the
creation of a degraded raidz array?
can't started
...
just rearrange your blocks sensibly -
and to at least some degree you could do that while
they're still cache-resident
Lots of discussion has passed under the bridge since that observation above,
but it may have contained the core of a virtually free solution: let your
table become
How does the ability to set a snapshot schedule for a particular *file* or
*folder* interact with the fact that ZFS snapshots are on a per-filesystem
basis? This seems a poor fit. If I choose to snapshot my Important
Documents folder every 5 minutes, that's implicitly creating snapshots of my
55 matches
Mail list logo
