On 04/16/10 20:26, Joe wrote:
I was just wondering if it is possible to spindown/idle/sleep hard disks that are
part of a Vdev pool SAFELY?
it's possible.
my ultra24 desktop has this enabled by default (because it's a known
desktop type). see the power.conf man page; I think you may need
Hello Darren,
Thanks for your answer!
I have try without encryption and seems the same.
My mean is about bandwidth. what I see is that if I write
xMb/s to zfs fs then zfs write nearly xMb/s to the pool and that's attended.
This pool write nearly xMb/s to lofi and that's attended.
iostat lofi
Thanks Richard,
I tried removing the replacement drive and received the same error.
Output of zdb -l /dev/rdsk/c5d1s0 results in:
ke...@opensolaris:~# zdb -l /dev/rdsk/c5d1s0
cannot open '/dev/rdsk/c5d1s0': No such device or address
All other drives have 4 readable labels 0-3
I even attempted the
From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
Um ... All the same time.
Even if I stat those directories ...
Access: Modify: and Change: are all useless...
which is why you need to stat the destination :-)
Ahh. I see it now.
By stat'ing the destination instead of the
From: Erik Trimble [mailto:erik.trim...@oracle.com]
So the suggestion, or question is: Is it possible or planned to
implement a
rollback command, that works as fast as a link or re-link operation,
implemented at a file or directory level, instead of the entire
filesystem?
so why
From: Ian Collins [mailto:i...@ianshome.com]
But is a fundamental of zfs:
snapshot
A read-only version of a file system or volume at a
given point in time. It is specified as filesys...@name
or vol...@name.
Erik Trimble's assessment that it
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Erik Trimble [mailto:erik.trim...@oracle.com]
So the suggestion, or question is: Is it possible or planned to
implement a
rollback command, that works as fast as a link or re-link operation,
implemented at a file or directory level, instead of
Hi all,
I'm planning a new build based on a SuperMicro chassis with 16 bays. I am
looking to use up to 4 of the bays for SSD devices.
After reading many posts about SSDs I believe I have a _basic_ understanding of
a reasonable approach to utilizing SSDs for ZIL and L2ARC.
Namely:
ZIL:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Dave Vrona wrote:
1) Mirroring. Leaving cost out of it, should ZIL and/or L2ARC SSDs
be mirrored ?
Mirroring the intent log is a good idea, particularly for ZFS versions
which don't support removing the intent log device.
2) ZIL write cache. It appears some have
On 04/17/10 07:59, Dave Vrona wrote:
1) Mirroring. Leaving cost out of it, should ZIL and/or L2ARC SSDs
be mirrored ?
L2ARC cannot be mirrored -- and doesn't need to be. The contents are
checksummed; if the checksum doesn't match, it's treated as a cache miss
and the block is re-read from
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Dave Vrona
1) Mirroring. Leaving cost out of it, should ZIL and/or L2ARC SSDs be
mirrored ?
IMHO, the best answer to this question is the one from the ZFS Best
Practices guide. (I wrote
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Dave Vrona
2) ZIL write cache. It appears some have disabled
Tim Cook t...@cook.ms writes:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
Eric D. Mudama edmud...@bounceswoosh.org writes:
On Thu, Apr 15 at 23:57, Günther wrote:
hello
if you are looking for pci-e (8x), i would recommend sas/sata controller
with lsi 1068E
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
Tim Cook t...@cook.ms writes:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com
wrote:
Eric D. Mudama edmud...@bounceswoosh.org writes:
On Thu, Apr 15 at 23:57, Günther wrote:
hello
if you
On 04/18/10 01:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Ian Collins [mailto:i...@ianshome.com]
But is a fundamental of zfs:
snapshot
A read-only version of a file system or volume at a
given point in time. It is specified as filesys...@name
or
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 15:19, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
Tim Cook t...@cook.ms writes:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com
wrote:
Eric D. Mudama edmud...@bounceswoosh.org writes:
On 17 apr 2010, at 20.51, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Dave Vrona
1) Mirroring. Leaving cost out of it, should ZIL and/or L2ARC SSDs be
mirrored ?
...
Personally, I recommend the latest build
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 05:36:19PM -0400, Ethan wrote:
From wikipedia, PCI is
133 MB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte/s (32-bit at 33 MHz)
266 MB/s (32-bit at 66 MHz or 64-bit at 33 MHz)
533 MB/s (64-bit at 66 MHz)
Not quite the 3GB/s hoped for.
Not quite, but somewhat closer to the
Ok, so originally I presented the X-25E as a reasonable approach. After
reading the follow-ups, I'm second guessing my statement.
Any decent alternatives at a reasonable price?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
I solved the mystery - an astounding 7 out of the 10 brand new disks I was
using were bad. I was using 4 at a time, and it wasn't until a good one got in
the mix that I realized what was wrong. FYI, these were Western Digital
WD15EADS and Samsung HD154UI. Each brand was mostly bad, with one or
Hi,
I've got a large file - 20gigs - which is stored in a zfs dataset. I
snapshotted the dataset and rsynced an newer, updated version of the same file
- slightly larger, but with mostly unchanged data.
According to how rsync works, the actual sent data should be much less than the
size of
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, G. Ander wrote:
According to how rsync works, the actual sent data should be much
less than the size of the file(s), however, I noticed that the used
space of the dataset+snapshot was the combined size of the older and
newer file.
The increase of space consumed is
On 18 apr 2010, at 00.52, Dave Vrona wrote:
Ok, so originally I presented the X-25E as a reasonable approach. After
reading the follow-ups, I'm second guessing my statement.
Any decent alternatives at a reasonable price?
How much is reasonable? :-)
I guess there are STEC drives that
Since we're talking about an old PCI slot here, I'd say there's really
two good options:
A SiliconImage Sil3114-based card, which is a 32-bit/66Mhz card, with 4
SATA-1 ports, usually for $25
A Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 card, which is a 64-bit/100Mhz PCI-X card (but
will fit and run just fine
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, G. Ander wrote:
According to how rsync works, the actual sent data should be much
less than the size of the file(s), however, I noticed that the used
space of the dataset+snapshot was the combined size of the older and
newer file.
The increase
On Apr 17, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Dave Vrona
1) Mirroring. Leaving cost out of it, should ZIL and/or L2ARC SSDs be
mirrored ?
IMHO, the best answer to this question
26 matches
Mail list logo
