On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 03:19:18PM -0500, Timothy Coalson wrote:
Replacing devices will not change the ashift, it is set permanently
when a vdev is created, and zpool will refuse to replace a device in
an ashift=9 vdev with a device that it would use ashift=12 on.
Yep.
[..] while hitachi
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 05:56:56PM -0500, Timothy Coalson wrote:
client: ubuntu 11.10
/etc/fstab entry: server:/mainpool/storage /mnt/myelin nfs
bg,retry=5,soft,proto=tcp,intr,nfsvers=3,noatime,nodiratime,async 0
0
nfsvers=3
NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:46:00PM +1000, Scott Aitken wrote:
Hi all,
Hi Scott. :-)
I have a 5 drive RAIDZ volume with data that I'd like to recover.
Yeah, still..
I tried using Jeff Bonwick's labelfix binary to create new labels but it
carps because the txg is not zero.
Can you provide
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 09:23:25AM -0600, Nigel W wrote:
After a snafu
last week at $work where a 512 byte pool would not resilver with a 4K
drive plugged in, it appears that (keep in mind that these are
consumer drives) Seagate no longer manufactures the 7200.12 series
drives which has a
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 01:34:18PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
I'd be interested in the results of such tests.
Me too, especially for databases like postgresql where there's a
complementary cache size tunable within the db that often needs to be
turned up, since they implicitly rely on some
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:42:02PM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
2012-05-22 7:30, Daniel Carosone wrote:
I've done basically this kind of thing before: dd a disk and then
scrub rather than replace, treating errors as expected.
I got into similar situation last night on that Thumper -
it is now
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 09:18:03PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012, Jim Klimov wrote:
This is so far a relatively raw idea and I've probably missed
something. Do you think it is worth pursuing and asking some
zfs developers to make a POC? ;)
I did read all of your text. :-)
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 03:05:09AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
While waiting for that resilver to complete last week,
I caught myself wondering how the resilvers (are supposed
to) work in ZFS?
The devil finds work for idle hands... :-)
Based on what I see in practice and read in this list
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 04:18:12PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
When doing a scrub, you start at the root bp and walk the tree, doing
reads for everything, verifying checksums, and letting repair happen
for any errors. That traversal is either a breadth-first or
depth-first traversal
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:16:40PM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
If it were my data, I'd set the pool read only, backup, rebuild and
restore. You do risk further data loss (maybe even pool loss) while the
new drive is resilvering.
You're definitely in a pickle. The first priority is to try
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 05:48:16AM +0200, Manuel Ryan wrote:
After a reboot of the machine, I have no more write errors on disk 2 (only
4 checksum, not growing), I was able to access data which I previously
couldn't and now only the checksum errors on disk 5 are growing.
Well, that's good, but
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 09:04:45AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Then, about 2 weeks later, the support rep emailed me to say they
implemented a new feature, which could autoresize +/- some small
percentage difference, like 1Mb difference or something like that.
There are two elements to
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 05:54:47PM +0200, casper@oracle.com wrote:
Is it possible to access the data from a detached device from an
mirrored pool.
If it is detached, I don't think there is a way to get access
to the mirror. Had you used split, you should be able to reimport it.
(You
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:12:14AM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Did you ever do a send|recv of these filesystems ? There was a bug with
send|recv in 151a that has since been fixed that could cause the salt to
be zero'd out in some cases.
Ah, so that's what that was.
I hit this problem
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 04:48:44AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
As Richard reminded me in another thread, both metadata
and DDT can contain checksums, hopefully of the same data
block. So for deduped data we may already have a means
to test whether the data or the checksum is incorrect...
It's
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:01:48PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
This thread is about checksums - namely, now, what are
our options when they mismatch the data? As has been
reported by many blog-posts researching ZDB, there do
happen cases when checksums are broken (i.e. bitrot in
block
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 05:16:36AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
2012-01-13 4:26, Richard Elling wrote:
On Jan 12, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
Alternatively (opportunistically), a flag might be set
in the DDT entry requesting that a new write mathching
this stored checksum should get
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 06:25:05PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
ZIL makes zero impact on resilver. I'll have to check to see if L2ARC is
still used, but
due to the nature of the ARC design, read-once workloads like backup or
resilver do
not tend to negatively impact frequently used data.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 03:05:32PM +1100, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 06:25:05PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
ZIL makes zero impact on resilver. I'll have to check to see if L2ARC is
still used, but
due to the nature of the ARC design, read-once workloads like backup
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 01:59:37AM +0100, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
I am sorry if these are dumb questions. If there are explanations
available somewhere for those questions that I just haven't found, please
let me know! :-)
I'll give you a brief summary.
1. It has been said that when the DDT
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 08:17:55PM -0400, John D Groenveld wrote:
Under both Solaris 10 and Solaris 11x, I receive the evil message:
| I/O request is not aligned with 4096 disk sector size.
| It is handled through Read Modify Write but the performance is very low.
I got similar with 4k sector
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 03:52:49AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
Recently I stumbled upon a Nexenta+Supermicro report [1] about
cluster-in-a-box with shared storage boasting an active-active
cluster with transparent failover. Now, I am not certain how
these two phrases fit in the same sentence,
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 11:09:45AM +1100, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 03:52:49AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
Recently I stumbled upon a Nexenta+Supermicro report [1] about
cluster-in-a-box with shared storage boasting an active-active
cluster with transparent failover. Now
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:17:57PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
You can do both poorly for free, or you can do both very well for big bucks.
That's what opensolaris was doing.
That mess was costing someone money and considered very well done?
Good riddance.
--
Dan.
pgp9EbJq1tUD1.pgp
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:49:22AM +1100, afree...@mac.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'm seeing some puzzling behaviour with my RAID-Z.
Indeed. Start with zdb -l on each of the disks to look at the labels in more
detail.
--
Dan.
pgpRTwLfC9flo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 09:28:36PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
On Oct 4, 2011, at 4:14 PM, Daniel Carosone wrote:
I sent it twice, because something strange happened on the first send,
to the ashift=12 pool. zfs list -o space showed figures at least
twice those on the source, maybe
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:34:07PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
It is also very similar to running iscsi targets on ZFS,
while letting some other servers use iscsi to connect to the ZFS server.
The SAS, IB and FCoE targets, too..
SAS might be the most directly comparable to replace a
On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 08:19:20AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
Hello, Daniel,
Apparently your data is represented by rather small files (thus
many small data blocks)
It's a zvol, default 8k block size, so yes.
, so proportion of metadata is relatively
high, and your4k blocks are now using at
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:43:30PM -0400, James Lee wrote:
I found an old post by Jeff Bonwick with some code that does EXACTLY
what I was looking for [1]. I had to update the 'label_write' function
to support the newer ZFS interfaces:
That's great!
Would someone in the community please
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 04:08:19PM +0200, Hans Rosenfeld wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 02:18:48AM -0400, Daniel Carosone wrote:
I see via the issue tracker that there have been several updates
since, and an integration back into the main Illumos tree. How do I
go about getting hold
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 05:36:53PM -0400, Paul Kraus wrote:
T2000 with 32 GB RAM
zpool that hangs the machine by running it out of kernel memory when
trying to import the zpool
zpool has an incomplete snapshot from a zfs recv that it is trying
to destroy on import
I *can* import the
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:47:36AM -0600, Lori Alt wrote:
On 09/ 6/11 11:45 PM, Daniel Carosone wrote:
My understanding was that 'zfs send -D' would use the pool's DDT in
building its own, if present.
It does not use the pool's DDT, but it does use the SHA-256 checksums
that have already
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:20:06AM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Hi all
Reading the docs for the Hitachi drives, it seems CCTL (aka TLER) is settable
for Deskstar drives. See page 97 in http://goo.gl/ER0WD
Looks like another positive for these drives over the competition.
The same
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 10:05:54PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
On Sep 6, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
For example, does 'zfs send -D' use the same DDT as the pool?
No.
My understanding was that 'zfs send -D' would use the pool's DDT in
building its own, if present. If blocks
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 10:51:37AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 01:25:35PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
To be clear, the system I was working on the other day is now running
with a normal ashift=9 pool, on a mirror of WD 2TB EARX. Not quite
what I was hoping
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:40:34PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 08:44:13AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
I'm getting a but tired of people designing for fast resilvering.
It is a design consideration, regardless, though your point is valid
that it shouldn't be
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:53:48PM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 08/30/11 15:31, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jesus Cea
1. Is the L2ARC data stored in the SSD checksummed?. If so, can I
expect
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 08:44:13AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
I'm getting a but tired of people designing for fast resilvering.
It is a design consideration, regardless, though your point is valid
that it shouldn't be the overriding consideration.
To the original question and poster:
This
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 01:25:35PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
To be clear, the system I was working on the other day is now running
with a normal ashift=9 pool, on a mirror of WD 2TB EARX. Not quite
what I was hoping for, but hopefully it will be OK; I won't have much
chance to mess
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:32:56PM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au wrote:
The other thing that can cause a storm of tiny IOs is dedup, and this
effect can last long after space has been freed and/or dedup turned
off, until all
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 05:58:49PM +0200, Hans Rosenfeld wrote:
I'm working on a patch for grub that fixes the ashift=12 issue.
Oh, great - and from the looks of the patch, for other values of 12 as
well :)
I'm probably not going to fix the div-by-zero reboot.
Fair enough, if it's an
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 11:22:36AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 05:58:49PM +0200, Hans Rosenfeld wrote:
I'm working on a patch for grub that fixes the ashift=12 issue.
Oh, great - and from the looks of the patch, for other values of 12 as
well :)
I'm probably
.. evidently doesn't work. GRUB reboots the machine moments after
loading stage2, and doesn't recognise the fstype when examining the
disk loaded from an alernate source.
This is with SX-151. Here's hoping a future version (with grub2?)
resolves this, as well as lets us boot from raidz.
Just a
Processing the request just means flagging the blocks, though, right?
And the actual benefits only acrue if the garbage collection / block
reshuffling background tasks get a chance to run?
I think that's right. TRIM just gives hints to the garbage collector that
sectors are no longer in
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 08:00:43PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Charles Stephens wrote:
I'm on S11E 150.0.1.9 and I replaced one of the drives and the pool
seems to be stuck in a resilvering loop. I performed a 'zpool clear'
and 'zpool scrub' and just complains that
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 06:44:25PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
It would be really
nice if the aclmode could be specified on a per object level rather than
a per file system level, but that would be considerably more difficult
to achieve 8-/.
If there were an acl permission for set
um, this is what xargs -P is for ...
--
Dan.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 07:24:52PM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
2011-07-14 15:48, Frank Van Damme ?:
It seems counter-intuitive - you'd say: concurrent disk access makes
things only slower - , but it turns out to be true. I'm deleting a
dozen
On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 07:56:25AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
2011-07-15 6:21, Daniel Carosone ?:
um, this is what xargs -P is for ...
Thanks for the hint. True, I don't often use xargs.
However from the man pages, I don't see a -P option
on OpenSolaris boxes of different releases
On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 09:03:50AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I suspect the problem is because I changed to AHCI.
This is normal, no matter what OS you have. It's the hardware.
That is simply false.
If you start using a disk in non-AHCI mode, you must always continue to use
it in
On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 01:11:09PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
Thomas,
On Jul 4, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Thomas Nau wrote:
This is a roundabout way to do this, but it can be done without changing any
source :-)
With the Nexenta or Solaris iSCSI target, you can set the blocksize for a LUN.
When
On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 05:44:34PM -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
My zfs machine has croaked to the point that it just quits after some
10 15 minutes of uptime. No interesting logs or messages what so
ever. At least not that I've found. It just quietly quits.
I'm not interested in dinking
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:40:53PM +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
On 06/30/11 08:50 PM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
I have a 1.5TB disk that has several partitions. One of them is 900GB. Now I
can only see 300GB. Where is the rest? Is there a command I can do to reach
the rest of the data? Will scrub
This article raises the concern that SSD controllers (in particular
SandForce) do internal dedup, and in particular that this could defeat
ditto-block style replication of critical metadata as done by
filesystems including ZFS.
http://storagemojo.com/2011/06/27/de-dup-too-much-of-good-thing/
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 02:01:12PM -0700, Larry Liu wrote:
You can try
#fdisk /dev/rdsk/c5d0t0p0
Or just dd /dev/zero over the raw device, eject and start from clean.
--
Dan.
pgpqmaR5Jw6Q0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
zfs-discuss mailing
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:49:27PM -0700, David W. Smith wrote:
# /home/dws# zpool import
pool: tank
id: 13155614069147461689
state: FAULTED
status: The pool metadata is corrupted.
action: The pool cannot be imported due to damaged devices or data.
see:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 08:03:25AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
Yes. I've been looking at what the value of zfs_vdev_max_pending should be.
The old value was 35 (a guess, but a really bad guess) and the new value is
10 (another guess, but a better guess). I observe that data from a fast,
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:41:41AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:05 PM
the [sata] channel is idle, blocked on command completion, while
the heads seek.
I'm interested in proving this point. Because I
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:06:48PM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
I have decided to bite the bullet and change to 2TB disks now rather
than go through all the effort using 1TB disks and then maybe changing
in 6-12 months time or whatever. The price difference between 1TB and
2TB disks
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:15:44PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
My personal preference, assuming 4 disks, since the OS is mostly reads and
only a little bit of writes, is to create a 4-way mirrored 100G partition
for the OS, and the remaining 900G of each disk (or whatever) becomes either
a
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:40:25PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:27 PM
Is it still the case, as it once was, that allocating anything other
than whole disks as vdevs forces NCQ / write cache off
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 07:19:05PM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Dedup is known to require a LOT of memory and/or L2ARC, and 24GB isn't really
much with 34TBs of data.
The fact that your second system lacks the l2arc cache device is absolutely
your prime suspect.
--
Dan.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:44:16AM -0700, Marty Scholes wrote:
And I looked in the source. My C is a little rusty, yet it appears
that prefetch items are not stored in L2ARC by default. Prefetches
will satisfy a good portion of sequential reads but won't go to
L2ARC.
Won't go to L2ARC
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 01:26:20PM -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
I'd go with the option of allowing both a weighted and a forced option. I
agree though, if you do primarycache=metadata, the system should still
attempt to cache userdata if there is additional space remaining.
I think I disagree.
Edward Ned Harvey writes:
If you consider the extreme bias... If the system would never give up
metadata in cache until all the cached data were gone... Then it would be
similar to the current primarycache=metadata, except that the system would
be willing to cache data too, whenever
Thanks, I like this summary format and the effort it took
to produce seems well-spent.
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 08:50:58PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
but I figured spending 500G on ZIL
would be unwise.
You couldn't possibly ever use 500G of ZIL, because the ZIL is required to
be
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:59:39PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:03 PM
Separately, with only 4G of RAM, i think an L2ARC is likely about a
wash, since L2ARC entries also consume RAM.
True the L2ARC
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 07:42:24AM -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Looks like the linux client did a chmod(2) after creating the file.
I bet this is it, and this seems to have been ignored in the later thread.
what happens when you create a file locally in that directory on the
solaris
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 06:57:53PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
If you make it a 3-way mirror, your write performance will be unaffected,
but your read performance will increase 50% over a 2-way mirror. All 3
drives can read different data simultaneously for the net effect of 3x a
single
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:16:28AM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 06:57:53PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
If you make it a 3-way mirror, your write performance will be unaffected,
but your read performance will increase 50% over a 2-way mirror. All 3
drives can
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 05:32:47PM +0100, Matt Keenan wrote:
Jim,
Thanks for the response, I've nearly got it working, coming up against a
hostid issue.
Here's the steps I'm going through :
- At end of auto-install, on the client just installed before I manually
reboot I do the
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 07:28:06AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:19 PM
Once your data is dedup'ed, by whatever means, access to it is the
same. You need enough memory+l2arc to indirect references via
DDT
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 08:20:03AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Carosone
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
The systems where we have had
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:04:04AM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
Question:? Is it possible, or can it easily become possible, to periodically
dedup a pool instead of keeping dedup
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 07:38:05AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:10 PM
These are additional
iops that dedup creates, not ones that it substitutes for others in
roughly equal number.
Hey ZFS
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 04:32:03AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
One more rationale in this idea is that with deferred dedup
in place, the DDT may be forced to hold only non-unique
blocks (2+ references), and would require less storage in
RAM, disk, L2ARC, etc. - in case we agree to remake the
DDT
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:25:04AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
(2) Now, in a pool with 2.4M unique blocks and dedup enabled (no verify), a
test file requires 10m38s to write and 2m54s to delete, but with dedup
disabled it only requires 0m40s to write and 0m13s to delete exactly the
same
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:54:16PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:52:04PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
Other than the initial create, and the most
recent scrub, the history only contains a sequence of auto-snapshot
creations and removals. None of the other
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 03:50:09PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
That said, for each block written (unique or not), the DDT must be updated,
which means reading and then writing the block that contains that dedup
table entry, and the indirect blocks to get to it. With a reasonably large
DDT,
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
The systems where we have had issues, are two 100TB boxes, with some
160TB raw storage each, so licensing this with nexentastor will be
rather expensive. What would you suggest? Will a solaris express
install give us good
, May 12, 2011 at 08:52:04PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:04:19AM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
There is a possible bug in in that area too, and it is only for the
keysource=passphrase case.
Ok, sounds like it's not yet a known one. If there's anything I can
do
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:23:55PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
They were also sent from an ashift=9 to an ashift=12 pool
This reminded me to post a note describing how I made pools with
different ashift. I do this both for pools on usb flash sticks, and
on disks with an underlying 4k
Sorry for abusing the mailing list, but I don't know how to report
bugs anymore and have no visibility of whether this is a
known/resolved issue. So, just in case it is not...
With Solaris 11 Express, scrubbing a pool with encrypted datasets for
which no key is currently loaded, unrecoverable
If I understood correctly:
- there is no requirement for the system to boot (or be bootable)
outside of your secure locations.
- you are willing to accept separate tracking and tagging of removable
media, e.g. for key distribution.
Consider, at least for purposes of learning from the
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 05:29:54PM +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
Daniel Carosone wrote:
Something similar would be useful, and much more readily achievable,
from ZFS from such an application, and many others. Rather than a way
to compare reliably between two files for identity, I'ld liek a way
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:54:19PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
If you're talking about streaming to a bunch of separate tape drives (or
whatever) on a bunch of separate systems because the recipient storage is
the bottleneck instead of the network ... then split probably isn't the
most
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 04:15:24AM -0700, Bertrand Augereau wrote:
Is there a O(nb_blocks_for_the_file) solution, then?
I know O(nb_blocks_for_the_file) == O(nb_bytes_in_the_file), from Mr.
Landau's POV, but I'm quite interested in a good constant factor.
If you were considering the hashes
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 09:24:38PM -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:
The best thing to do with processes that can be swapped out forever is
to not run them.
Agreed, however:
#1 Shorter values of forever (like, say, daily) may still be useful.
#2 This relies on knowing in advance what these processes
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 04:34:13PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
The suggestion I would have instead, would be to make the external drive its
own separate zpool, and then you can incrementally zfs send | zfs receive
onto the external.
I'd suggest doing both, to different destinations :)
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:29:04AM -0600, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
The revised ZFS Administration Guide describes the ZFS version
descriptions and the Solaris OS releases that provide the version
and feature, starting on page 293, here:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:36:37AM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
- Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au skrev:
SAS: Full SCSI TCQ
SATA: Lame ATA NCQ
What's so lame about NCQ?
Primarily, the meager number of outstanding requests; write cache is
needed to pretend the writes are done
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:02:42AM -0700, Chris Du wrote:
SAS: full duplex
SATA: half duplex
SAS: dual port
SATA: single port (some enterprise SATA has dual port)
SAS: 2 active channel - 2 concurrent write, or 2 read, or 1 write and 1 read
SATA: 1 active channel - 1 read or 1 write
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 09:58:12PM -0700, thomas wrote:
Assuming newer version zpools, this sounds like it could be even
safer since there is (supposedly) less of a chance of catastrophic
failure if your ramdisk setup fails. Use just one remote ramdisk or
two with battery backup.. whatever
I have certainly moved a root pool from one disk to another, with the
same basic process, ie:
- fuss with fdisk and SMI labels (sigh)
- zpool create
- snapshot, send and recv
- installgrub
- swap disks
I looked over the root pool recovery section in the Best Practices guide
at the time,
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:55:10PM -0600, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
You can use the OpenSolaris beadm command to migrate a ZFS BE over
to another root pool, but you will also need to perform some manual
migration steps, such as
- copy over your other rpool datasets
- recreate swap and dump
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 07:02:38PM -0700, Don wrote:
If you have a pair of heads talking to shared disks with ZFS- what can you do
to ensure the second head always has a current copy of the zpool.cache file?
I'd prefer not to lose the ZIL, fail over, and then suddenly find out I can't
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 10:33:36PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Probably the DDRDrive is able to go faster since it should have lower
latency than a FLASH SSD drive. However, it may have some bandwidth
limits on its interface.
It clearly has some. They're just as clearly well in excess
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 07:37:10PM -0700, Don wrote:
I'm not sure to what you are referring when you say my running BE
Running boot environment - the filesystem holding /etc/zpool.cache
--
Dan.
pgpbKUgqnePjv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 03:37:43PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
the filesystem holding /etc/zpool.cache
or, indeed, /etc/zfs/zpool.cache :-)
--
Dan.
pgpSCBv4eR19k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss
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
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:46:01AM -0700, Willard Korfhage wrote:
The drives are recent - 1.5TB drives
I'm going to bet this is a 32-bit system, and you're getting screwed
by the 1TB limit that applies there. If so, you will find clues
hidden in dmesg from boot time about this, as the drives
1 - 100 of 297 matches
Mail list logo
