I doubt so. Star/OpenOffice are word processors...
and like Word they are not suitable for typesetting
documents.
SGML, FrameMaker TeX/LateX are the only ones
capable of doing that.
This was pretty much true about a year ago. However, after version 2.3, which
adds the kerning feature,
with other Word files. You will thus end up seeking all over the disk
to read _most_ Word files. Which really sucks.
snip
very limited, constrained usage. Disk is just so cheap, that you
_really_ have to have an enormous amount of dup before the performance
penalties of dedup are
the os 's / first is on mirror /dev/dsk/c1t0d0s0 and /dev/dsk/c1t1d0s0, and
then created home_pool using mirror, here is the mirror information.
pool: omp_pool
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
omp_pool ONLINE 0
Hello Tharindu,
Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 6:35:33 AM, you wrote:
TRB Dear Mark/All,
TRB Our trading system is writing to local and/or array volume at 10k
TRB messages per second.
TRB Each message is about 700bytes in size.
TRB Before ZFS, we used UFS.
TRB Even with UFS, there was evey 5
10,000 x 700 = 7MB per
second ..
We have this rate for whole day
10,000 orders per second is minimum requirments of modern day stock
exchanges ...
Cache still help us for ~1 hours, but after that who will help us ...
We are using 2540 for current testing ...
I have tried same with
txt_time/D
mdb: failed to dereference symbol: unknown symbol name
txg_time/D
mdb: failed to dereference symbol: unknown symbol name
Am I doing something wrong
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Tharindu,
Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 6:35:33 AM, you wrote:
TRB Dear Mark/All,
TRB Our
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Tharindu Rukshan Bamunuarachchi wrote:
10,000 x 700 = 7MB per second ..
We have this rate for whole day
10,000 orders per second is minimum requirments of modern day stock exchanges
...
Cache still help us for ~1 hours, but after that who will help us ...
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More than anything, Bob's reply is my major feeling on this. Dedup may
indeed turn out to be quite useful, but honestly, there's no broad data
which says that it is a Big Win (tm) _right_now_, compared to finishing
other
One can carve furniture with an axe, especially if it's razor-sharp,
but that doesn't make it a spokeshave, plane and saw.
I love star office, and use it every day, but my publisher uses
Frame, so that's what I use for books.
--dave
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
I doubt so. Star/OpenOffice are word
Recently, I needed to move the boot disks containing a ZFS root pool in an
Ultra 1/170E running snv_93 to a different system (same hardware) because
the original system was broken/unreliable.
To my dismay, unlike with UFS, the new machine wouldn't boot:
WARNING: pool 'root' could not be
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Tharindu Rukshan Bamunuarachchi wrote:
10,000 x 700 = 7MB per second ..
We have this rate for whole day
10,000 orders per second is minimum requirments of modern day stock exchanges
...
Cache still help us for ~1 hours, but after that who will help us ...
=?UTF-8?Q?J=C3=BCrgen_Keil?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Recently, I needed to move the boot disks containing a ZFS root pool in an
Ultra 1/170E running snv_93 to a different system (same hardware) because
the original system was broken/unreliable.
To my dismay, unlike with UFS, the new
Rainer Orth wrote:
Rainer Orth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
instlalboot on the new disk and see if that fixes it.
Unfortunately, it didn't. Reconsidering now, I see that I ran installboot
against slice 0 (reduced by 1 sector as required by CR 6680633) instead of
slice 2 (whole
Would adding a dedicated ZIL/SLOG (what is the difference between those 2
exactly? Is there one?) help meet your requirement?
The idea would be to use some sort of relatively large SSD drive of some
variety to absorb the initial write-hit. After hours when things quieit down
(or perhaps during
Richard Elling writes:
I've found out what the problem was: I didn't specify the -F zfs option to
installboot, so only half of the ZFS bootblock was written. This is a
combination of two documentation bugs and a terrible interface:
Mainly because there is no -F option?
Huh? From
Rainer,
Sorry for your trouble.
I'm updating the installboot example in the ZFS Admin Guide with the
-F zfs syntax now. We'll fix the installboot man page as well.
Mark, I don't have an x86 system to test right now, can you send
me the correct installgrub syntax for booting a ZFS file system?
Cindy,
Sorry for your trouble.
no problem.
I'm updating the installboot example in the ZFS Admin Guide with the
-F zfs syntax now. We'll fix the installboot man page as well.
Great, thanks.
Rainer
-
Rainer
I wrote:
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 10:28 -0700, Jürgen Keil wrote:
I ran a scrub on a root pool after upgrading to snv_94, and got
checksum errors:
Hmm, after reading this, I started a zpool scrub on my mirrored pool,
on a system that is running post
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rainer,
Sorry for your trouble.
I'm updating the installboot example in the ZFS Admin Guide with the
-F zfs syntax now. We'll fix the installboot man page as well.
Mark, I don't have an x86 system to test right now, can you send me the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Tharindu Rukshan Bamunuarachchi wrote:
10,000 x 700 = 7MB per second ..
We have this rate for whole day
10,000 orders per second is minimum requirments of modern day stock
exchanges ...
Cache still help us for ~1 hours, but
Rainer Orth wrote:
Richard Elling writes:
I've found out what the problem was: I didn't specify the -F zfs option to
installboot, so only half of the ZFS bootblock was written. This is a
combination of two documentation bugs and a terrible interface:
Mainly because there is
I'm a fan of ZFS since I've read about it last year.
Now I'm on the way to build a home fileserver and I'm thinking to go with
Opensolaris and eventually ZFS!!
Apart from the other components, the main problem is to choose the motherboard.
The offer is incredibly high and I'm lost.
Minimum
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a fan of ZFS since I've read about it last year.
Now I'm on the way to build a home fileserver and I'm thinking to go with
Opensolaris and eventually ZFS!!
Apart from the other components, the main problem is to choose the
I am wondering how many SATA controllers most motherboards have for
their built-in SATA ports.
Mine, an ASUS M2A-VM, has four ports, but OpenSolaris reports them as
belonging to two controllers.
I have seen motherboards with 6+ SATA ports, and would love to know if
any of them have more
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Tharindu Rukshan Bamunuarachchi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Mark/All,
Our trading system is writing to local and/or array volume at 10k
messages per second.
Each message is about 700bytes in size.
Before ZFS, we used UFS.
Even with UFS, there was evey 5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve wrote:
| I'm a fan of ZFS since I've read about it last year.
|
| Now I'm on the way to build a home fileserver and I'm thinking to go
with Opensolaris and eventually ZFS!!
|
| Apart from the other components, the main problem is to choose the
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Minimum requisites should be:
- working well with Open Solaris ;-)
- micro ATX (I would put in a little case)
- low power consumption but more important reliable (!)
- with Gigabit ethernet
- 4+ (even better 6+) sata 3gb
Hello Zfs Community,
I am trying to locate if zfs has a compatible tool to Veritas's
vxbench? Any ideas? I see a tool called vdbench that looks close, but
it is not a Sun tool, does Sun recommend something to customers moving
from Veritas to ZFS and like vxbench and its capabilities?
Is it possible to input the value of zfs:zfs_arc_max in 10-based format or
other more common form (e.g., zfs:zfs_arc_max = 1GB, etc.), in addition to the
current hex format?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Thank you for all the replays!
(and in the meantime I was just having a dinner! :-)
To recap:
tcook:
you are right, in fact I'm thinking to have just 3/4 for now, without anything
else (no cd/dvd, no videocard, nothing else than mb and drives)
the case will be the second choice, but I'll try to
Richard Gilmore wrote:
Hello Zfs Community,
I am trying to locate if zfs has a compatible tool to Veritas's
vxbench? Any ideas? I see a tool called vdbench that looks close, but
it is not a Sun tool, does Sun recommend something to customers moving
from Veritas to ZFS and like vxbench
I was curious if there was any utility or library function available to
evaluate a ZFS ACL. The standard POSIX access(2) call is available to
evaluate access by the current process, but I would like to evaluate an ACL
in one process that would be able to determine whether or not some other
user
Paul B. Henson writes:
I was curious if there was any utility or library function available to
evaluate a ZFS ACL. The standard POSIX access(2) call is available to
evaluate access by the current process, but I would like to evaluate an ACL
in one process that would be able to determine
mh == Matt Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mh http://breden.org.uk/2008/03/02/home-fileserver-zfs-hardware/
that's very helpful. I'll reshop for nForce 570 boards. i think my
untested guess was an nForce 630 or something, so it probably won't
work.
I would add:
1. do not get three
W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
Is it possible to input the value of zfs:zfs_arc_max in 10-based format or
other more common form (e.g., zfs:zfs_arc_max = 1GB, etc.), in addition to
the current hex format?
Parameters set in /etc/system follow the rules as described in the
system(4) man page.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bhigh:
so the best is 780G?
I'm not sure if it's the best, but it's a good choice. A motherboard
and cpu can be had for about $150. Personally, I'm waiting for the AMD
790GX / SB750 which is due out this month. The 780G has 1 x16
Thommy M. wrote:
Richard Gilmore wrote:
Hello Zfs Community,
I am trying to locate if zfs has a compatible tool to Veritas's
vxbench? Any ideas? I see a tool called vdbench that looks close, but
it is not a Sun tool, does Sun recommend something to customers moving
from Veritas to
G'Day Jeff,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:45:13PM -0400, Jeff Taylor wrote:
When will L2ARC be available in Solaris 10?
There are no current plans to back port; if we were to, I think it would be
ideal (or maybe a requirement) to sync up zpool features:
VER DESCRIPTION
---
Miles Nordin writes:
mh == Matt Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mh http://breden.org.uk/2008/03/02/home-fileserver-zfs-hardware/
that's very helpful. I'll reshop for nForce 570 boards. i think my
untested guess was an nForce 630 or something, so it probably won't
work.
I
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 03:20:47PM -0700, Brendan Gregg - Sun Microsystems
wrote:
G'Day Jeff,
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 02:45:13PM -0400, Jeff Taylor wrote:
When will L2ARC be available in Solaris 10?
There are no current plans to back port;
Sorry - I should have said that I wasn't aware
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. get four disks and do raidz2.
In addition to increasing MTTF, this is good because if you need
to leave in a hurry, you can grab two of the disks and still leave
behind a working file server. I think this
On 23 July, 2008 - Brandon High sent me these 1,3K bytes:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. get four disks and do raidz2.
In addition to increasing MTTF, this is good because if you need
to leave in a hurry, you can grab two of the disks
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Brandon High wrote:
With raidz2, you can grab any two disks. With mirroring, you have to
grab the correct two.
Personally, with only 4 drives I would use raidz to increase the
available storage or mirroring for better performance rather than use
raidz2.
If mirroring is
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Ian Collins wrote:
I don't know if such a tool exists, but I'm in the process or writing one
(as part of a larger ACL admin tool) if you are intersted.
If there is no standard routine to handle this functionality, I would very
much appreciate a copy of your code...
ic == Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ic I'd use mirrors rather than raidz2. You should see better
ic performance
the problem is that it's common for a very large drive to have
unreadable sectors. This can happen because the drive is so big that
its bit-error-rate matters. But
3. burn in the raidset for at least one month before trusting the
disks to not all fail simultaneously.
Has anyone ever seen this happen for real? I seriously doubt it will
happen
with new drives.
I have seen it happen on my own home ZFS fileserver...
purchased two new 500gb
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008, Miles Nordin wrote:
the problem is that it's common for a very large drive to have
unreadable sectors. This can happen because the drive is so big that
its bit-error-rate matters. But usually it happens because the drive
is starting to go bad but you don't realize this
We are having slow performance with the UFS volumes on the x4500. They
are slow even on the local server. Which makes me think it is (for once)
not NFS related.
Current settings:
SunOS x4500-01.unix 5.11 snv_70b i86pc i386 i86pc
# cat /etc/release
Solaris Express Developer
Jorgen Lundman writes:
We are having slow performance with the UFS volumes on the x4500. They
are slow even on the local server. Which makes me think it is (for once)
not NFS related.
Current settings:
SunOS x4500-01.unix 5.11 snv_70b i86pc i386 i86pc
That's a very old
SunOS x4500-01.unix 5.11 snv_70b i86pc i386 i86pc
That's a very old release, have you considered upgrading?
Ian.
It was the absolute latest version available when we received the x4500,
and now it is live and supporting a large number of customers. However,
the 2nd unit will arrive next
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Miles Nordin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*SNIP*
Anyway, you can find more anecdotes in the archives of this list.
IIRC someone else corroborated that he found, among non-DoA drives,
failures are more likely in the first month than in the second month,
but I
Hello, I've hit this same problem.
Hernan/Victor, I sent you an email asking for the description of this solution.
I've also got important data on my array. I went to b93 hoping there'd be a
patch for this.
I caused the problem in a manner identical to Hernan; by removing a zvol clone.
Exact
52 matches
Mail list logo
