One of my zpools (sol-10-u4-ga-sparc) has experienced some permanent errors.
At this point, I don't care about the contents of the files in question, I
merely want to cleanup the zpool. zpool clear doesn't seem to do anything at
all. Any suggestions?
# zpool status -v ccm01
pool: ccm01
state:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 1:08 PM, mike [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like this will be the way I do it:
initially:
zpool create mypool raidz2 disk0 disk1 disk2 disk3 disk4 disk5 disk6 disk7
when I need more space and buy 8 more disks:
zpool add mypool raidz2 disk8 disk9 disk10 disk11
To further clarify Will's point...
Your current setup provides excellent hardware protection, but absolutely no
data protection.
ZFS provides excellent data protection when it has multiple copies of the
data blocks (1 hardware devices).
Combine the two, provide 1 hardware devices to ZFS, and you
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Stefano Pini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys,
we are proposing a customer a couple of X4500 (24 Tb) used as NAS (i.e.
NFS server).
Both server will contain the same files and should be accessed by different
clients at the same time (i.e. they should be
at 5:54 PM, eric kustarz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Chris Cosby wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Stefano Pini [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi guys,
we are proposing a customer a couple of X4500 (24 Tb) used as NAS (i.e.
NFS server).
Both server
To do dedup properly, it seems like there would have to be some overly
complicated methodology for a sort of delayed dedup of the data. For speed,
you'd want your writes to go straight into the cache and get flushed out as
quickly as possibly, keep everything as ACID as possible. Then, a dedup
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 11:19 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/22/2008 09:58:53 AM:
To do dedup properly, it seems like there would have to be some
overly complicated methodology for a sort of delayed dedup of the
data. For speed, you'd want your writes to go
S10U2 has zfs version=1. Any patches are just bug fixes (I'm not sure if
there are any). If your intention is to get to a newer, later, greater ZFS,
you'll need to upgrade. S10U5 has, for example, version=4. Differences in
the versions of zfs can be found at
We're running Solaris 10 U5 on lots of Sun SPARC hardware. That's ZFS
version=4. Simple question: how far behind is this version of ZFS as
compared to what is in Nevada? Just point me to the web page, I know it's
out there somewhere.
--
chris -at- microcozm -dot- net
=== Si Hoc Legere Scis
I'm going down a bit of a different path with my reply here. I know that all
shops and their need for data are different, but hear me out.
1) You're backing up 40TB+ of data, increasing at 20-25% per year. That's
insane. Perhaps it's time to look at your backup strategy no from a hardware
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Matt Harrison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Afshin Salek wrote:
| Your terminology is a bit confusing for me, so:
Sorry i should have worded this much better,
| you have 1 pool (zpool create)
| you have a FS
From my usage, the first question you should ask your customer is how much
of a performance hit they can spare when switching to ZFS for Oracle. I've
done lots of tweaking (following threads I've read on the mailing list), but
I still can't seem to get enough performance out of any databases on
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 11:18:21AM -0600, Lori Alt wrote:
Sorry it's taken me so long to weigh in on this.
You're busy with important things, we'll forgive you. ;)
With zfs, we don't
13 matches
Mail list logo
