valrh...@gmail.com valrh...@gmail.com writes:
I have been using DVDs for small backups here and there for a decade
now, and have a huge pile of several hundred. They have a lot of
overlapping content, so I was thinking of feeding the entire stack
into some sort of DVD autoloader, which would
Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com writes:
Kjetil Torgrim Homme kjeti...@linpro.no wrote:
it would be inconvenient to make a dedup copy on harddisk or tape,
you could only do it as a ZFS filesystem or ZFS send stream. it's
better to use a generic tool like hardlink(1), and just
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org writes:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
no. what happens when an NFS client without ACL support mounts your
filesystem? your security is blown wide open. the filemode should
reflect the *least* level of access. if the filemode on its own
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org writes:
Good :). I am certainly not wedded to my proposal, if some other
solution is proposed that would meet my requirements, great. However,
pretty much all of the advice has boiled down to either ACL's are
broken, don't use them, or why would you want to do
Paul B. Henson hen...@acm.org writes:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I think of using ACLs to extend extra access beyond what the
permission bits grant. Are you talking about using them to prevent
things that the permission bits appear to grant? Because so long as
they're
tomwaters tomwat...@chadmail.com writes:
I created a zfs file system, cloud/movies and shared it.
I then filled it with movies and music.
I then decided to rename it, so I used rename in the Gnome to change
the folder name to media...ie cloud/media. MISTAKE
I then noticed the zfs share
Steve steve.jack...@norman.com writes:
I would like to ask a question regarding ZFS performance overhead when
having hundreds of millions of files
We have a storage solution, where one of the datasets has a folder
containing about 400 million files and folders (very small 1K files)
What
David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net writes:
Which is bad enough if you say ls. And there's no option to say
don't sort that I know of, either.
/bin/ls -f
/bin/ls makes sure an alias for ls to ls -F or similar doesn't
cause extra work. you can also write \ls -f to ignore a potential
alias.
Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net writes:
kth == Kjetil Torgrim Homme kjeti...@linpro.no writes:
kth the SCSI layer handles the replaying of operations after a
kth reboot or connection failure.
how?
I do not think it is handled by SCSI layers, not for SAS nor iSCSI.
sorry, I
Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net writes:
There will probably be clients that might seem to implicitly make this
assuption by mishandling the case where an iSCSI target goes away and
then comes back (but comes back less whatever writes were in its write
cache). Handling that case for NFS was
Chris Banal cba...@gmail.com writes:
We have a SunFire X4500 running Solaris 10U5 which does about 5-8k nfs
ops of which about 90% are meta data. In hind sight it would have been
significantly better to use a mirrored configuration but we opted for
4 x (9+2) raidz2 at the time. We can not
Bogdan Ćulibrk b...@default.rs writes:
What are my options from here? To move onto zvol with greater
blocksize? 64k? 128k? Or I will get into another trouble going that
way when I have small reads coming from domU (ext3 with default
blocksize of 4k)?
yes, definitely. have you considered
Eric D. Mudama edmud...@bounceswoosh.org writes:
On Tue, Feb 9 at 2:36, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
no one is selling disk brackets without disks. not Dell, not EMC,
not NetApp, not IBM, not HP, not Fujitsu, ...
http://discountechnology.com/Products/SCSI-Hard-Drive-Caddies-Trays
very nice
Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us writes:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Frank Cusack wrote:
The other three commonly mentioned issues are:
- Disable the naggle algorithm on the windows clients.
for iSCSI? shouldn't be necessary.
- Set the volume block size so that it matches the
[please don't top-post, please remove CC's, please trim quotes. it's
really tedious to clean up your post to make it readable.]
Marc Nicholas geekyth...@gmail.com writes:
Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net wrote:
Marc Nicholas geekyth...@gmail.com wrote:
Kjetil Torgrim Homme kjeti...@linpro.no
Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com writes:
On Feb 8, 2010, at 9:10 PM, Damon Atkins wrote:
I would have thought that if I write 1k then ZFS txg times out in
30secs, then the 1k will be written to disk in a 1k record block, and
then if I write 4k then 30secs latter txg happen another 4k
Neil Perrin neil.per...@sun.com writes:
On 02/09/10 08:18, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
I think the above is easily misunderstood. I assume the OP means
append, not rewrites, and in that case (with recordsize=128k):
* after the first write, the file will consist of a single 1 KiB record
Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au writes:
In that context, I haven't seen an answer, just a conclusion:
- All else is not equal, so I give my money to some other hardware
manufacturer, and get frustrated that Sun won't let me buy the
parts I could use effectively and comfortably.
Damon Atkins damon_atk...@yahoo.com.au writes:
One problem could be block sizes, if a file is re-written and is the
same size it may have different ZFS record sizes within, if it was
written over a long period of time (txg's)(ignoring compression), and
therefore you could not use ZFS checksum
grarpamp grarp...@gmail.com writes:
PS: Is there any way to get a copy of the list since inception for
local client perusal, not via some online web interface?
I prefer to read mailing lists using a newsreader and the NNTP interface
at Gmane. a newsreader tends to be better at threading etc.
Tim Cook t...@cook.ms writes:
Kjetil Torgrim Homme kjeti...@linpro.no wrote:
I don't know what the J4500 drive sled contains, but for the J4200
and J4400 they need to include quite a bit of circuitry to handle
SAS protocol all the way, for multipathing and to be able to
accept
Christo Kutrovsky kutrov...@pythian.com writes:
Has anyone seen soft corruption in NTFS iSCSI ZVOLs after a power
loss?
this is not from experience, but I'll answer anyway.
I mean, there is no guarantee writes will be executed in order, so in
theory, one could corrupt it's NTFS file system.
Alexandre MOREL almo...@gmail.com writes:
It's a few day now that I try to use a 9650SE 3ware controller to work
on opensolaris and I found the following problem : the tw driver seems
work, I can see my controller whith the tw_cli of 3ware. I can see
that 2 drives are created with the
matthew patton patto...@yahoo.com writes:
true. but I buy a Ferrari for the engine and bodywork and chassis
engineering. It is totally criminal what Sun/EMC/Dell/Netapp do
charging customers 10x the open-market rate for standard drives. A
RE3/4 or NS drive is the same damn thing no matter if
Frank Cusack frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net writes:
On 2/4/10 8:00 AM +0100 Tomas Ögren wrote:
The find -newer blah suggested in other posts won't catch newer
files with an old timestamp (which could happen for various reasons,
like being copied with kept timestamps from somewhere else).
good
Nilsen, Vidar vidar.nil...@palantir.no writes:
And once an hour I run a script that checks for new dirs last 60
minutes matching some criteria, and outputs the path to an
IRC-channel. Where we can see if someone else has added new stuff.
Method used is “find –mmin -60”, which gets horrible
Tiernan O'Toole lsmart...@gmail.com writes:
looking at the 3ware 9650 SE raid controller for a new build... anyone
have any luck with this card? their site says they support
OpenSolaris... anyone used one?
didn't work too well for me. it's fast and nice for a couple of days,
then the driver
antst ant.stari...@gmail.com writes:
I'm more than happy by the fact that data consumes even less physical
space on storage. But I want to understand why and how. And want to
know to what numbers I can trust.
my guess is sparse files.
BTW, I think you should compare the size returned from
Mark Bennett mark.benn...@public.co.nz writes:
Update:
For the WD10EARS, the blocks appear to be aligned on the 4k boundary
when zfs uses the whole disk (whole disk as EFI partition).
Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector
0usrwm
Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com writes:
We use the following for our storage servers:
[...]
3Ware 9650SE PCIe RAID controller (12-port, muli-lane)
[...]
Fully supported by FreeBSD, so everything should work with
OpenSolaris.
FWIW, I've used the 9650SE with 16 ports in OpenSolaris 2008.11
Mike Gerdts mger...@gmail.com writes:
Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
Mike Gerdts mger...@gmail.com writes:
John Hoogerdijk wrote:
Is there a way to zero out unused blocks in a pool? I'm looking for
ways to shrink the size of an opensolaris virtualbox VM and using the
compact subcommand
I was looking at the performance of using rsync to copy some large files
which change only a little between each run (database files). I take a
snapshot after every successful run of rsync, so when using rsync
--inplace, only changed portions of the file will occupy new disk space.
Tim Cook t...@cook.ms writes:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Frank Cusack fcus...@fcusack.com wrote:
I mean, just do a triple mirror of the 1.5TB drives rather than
say (6) .5TB drives in a raidz3.
I bet you'll get the same performance out of 3x1.5TB drives you get
out of 6x500GB
David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca writes:
On Jan 24, 2010, at 10:26, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
But it occured to me that this is a special case which could be
beneficial in many cases -- if the filesystem uses secure checksums,
it could check the existing block pointer and see
Lutz Schumann presa...@storageconcepts.de writes:
Actually the performance decrease when disableing the write cache on
the SSD is aprox 3x (aka 66%).
for this reason, you want a controller with battery backed write cache.
in practice this means a RAID controller, even if you don't use the RAID
Brad bene...@yahoo.com writes:
Hi Adam,
I'm not Adam, but I'll take a stab at it anyway.
BTW, your crossposting is a bit confusing to follow, at least when using
gmane.org. I think it is better to stick to one mailing list anyway?
From your the picture, it looks like the data is distributed
Darren J Moffat darr...@opensolaris.org writes:
Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
I don't know how tightly interwoven the dedup hash tree and the block
pointer hash tree are, or if it is all possible to disentangle them.
At the moment I'd say very interwoven by design.
conceptually it doesn't
Anil an...@entic.net writes:
If you have another partition with enough space, you could technically
just do:
mv src /some/other/place
mv /some/other/place src
Anyone see a problem with that? Might be the best way to get it
de-duped.
I get uneasy whenever I see mv(1) used to move
Andrey Kuzmin andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com writes:
Downside you have described happens only when the same checksum is
used for data protection and duplicate detection. This implies sha256,
BTW, since fletcher-based dedupe has been dropped in recent builds.
if the hash used for dedup is
Darren J Moffat darr...@opensolaris.org writes:
Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
Andrey Kuzmin andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com writes:
Downside you have described happens only when the same checksum is
used for data protection and duplicate detection. This implies sha256,
BTW, since fletcher-based
Andrey Kuzmin andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com writes:
Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
for some reason I, like Steve, thought the checksum was calculated on
the uncompressed data, but a look in the source confirms you're right,
of course.
thinking about the consequences of changing it, RAID-Z recovery
Andrey Kuzmin andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com writes:
Yet again, I don't see how RAID-Z reconstruction is related to the
subject discussed (what data should be sha256'ed when both dedupe and
compression are enabled, raw or compressed ). sha256 has nothing to do
with bad block detection (may be it
Andrey Kuzmin andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com writes:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
Resilvering has noting to do with sha256: one could resilver long
before dedupe was introduced in zfs.
SHA256 isn't just used for dedup it is available as one of the
checksum algorithms right back to
Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl writes:
On 13/12/2009 20:51, Steve Radich, BitShop, Inc. wrote:
Because if you can de-dup anyway why bother to compress THEN check?
This SEEMS to be the behaviour - i.e. I would suspect many of the
files I'm writing are dups - however I see high cpu use even
I'm planning to try out deduplication in the near future, but started
wondering if I can prepare for it on my servers. one thing which struck
me was that I should change the checksum algorithm to sha256 as soon as
possible. but I wonder -- is that sufficient? will the dedup code know
about old
Adam Leventhal a...@eng.sun.com writes:
Unfortunately, dedup will only apply to data written after the setting
is enabled. That also means that new blocks cannot dedup against old
block regardless of how they were written. There is therefore no way
to prepare your pool for dedup -- you just
Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au writes:
Not if you're trying to make a single disk pool redundant by adding
.. er, attaching .. a mirror; then there won't be such a warning,
however effective that warning might or might not be otherwise.
Not a problem because you can then detach the vdev
I was catching up on old e-mail on this list, and came across a blog
posting from Henrik Johansson:
http://sparcv9.blogspot.com/2009/10/curious-case-of-strange-arc.html
it tells of his woes with a fragmented /var/pkg/downloads combined
with atime updates. I see the same problem on my servers,
Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au writes:
you can fetch the cr_txg (cr for creation) for a
snapshot using zdb,
yes, but this is hardly an appropriate interface.
agreed.
zdb is also likely to cause disk activity because it looks at many
things other than the specific item in question.
I'd
Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au writes:
I don't think it is easy to do, the txg counter is on
a pool level,
[..]
it would help when the entire pool is idle, though.
.. which is exactly the scenario in question: when the disks are
likely to be spun down already (or to spin down soon
Kjetil Torgrim Homme kjeti...@linpro.no writes:
Cindy Swearingen cindy.swearin...@sun.com writes:
You might check the slides on this page:
http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+zfs/docs
Particularly, slides 14-18.
In this case, graphic illustrations are probably the best way
Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au writes:
Would there be a way to avoid taking snapshots if they're going to be
zero-sized?
I don't think it is easy to do, the txg counter is on a pool level,
AFAIK:
# zdb -u spool
Uberblock
magic = 00bab10c
version = 13
txg
sundeep dhall sundeep.dh...@sun.com writes:
Q) How do I simulate a sudden 1-disk failure to validate that zfs /
raidz handles things well without data errors
Options considered
1. suddenly pulling a disk out
2. using zpool offline
I think both these have issues in simulating a sudden
Darren J Moffat darr...@opensolaris.org writes:
Mauricio Tavares wrote:
If I have a machine with two drives, could I create equal size slices
on the two disks, set them up as boot pool (mirror) and then use the
remaining space as a striped pool for other more wasteful
applications?
You
David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca writes:
On Tue, June 16, 2009 15:32, Kyle McDonald wrote:
So the cache saves not only the time to access the disk but also
the CPU time to decompress. Given this, I think it could be a big
win.
Unless you're in GIMP working on JPEGs, or doing some kind of
Fajar A. Nugraha fa...@fajar.net writes:
Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
indeed. I think only programmers will see any substantial benefit
from compression, since both the code itself and the object files
generated are easily compressible.
Perhaps compressing /usr could be handy, but why
Monish Shah mon...@indranetworks.com writes:
I'd be interested to see benchmarks on MySQL/PostgreSQL performance
with compression enabled. my *guess* would be it isn't beneficial
since they usually do small reads and writes, and there is little
gain in reading 4 KiB instead of 8 KiB.
OK,
Roman V Shaposhnik r...@sun.com writes:
I must admit that this question originates in the context of Sun's
Storage 7210 product, which impose additional restrictions on the
kind of knobs I can turn.
But here's the question: suppose I have an installation where ZFS is
the storage for user
Frank Middleton f.middle...@apogeect.com writes:
Exactly. My whole point. And without ECC there's no way of knowing.
But if the data is damaged /after/ checksum but /before/ write, then
you have a real problem...
we can't do much to protect ourselves from damage to the data itself
(an extra
59 matches
Mail list logo
