on a UFS ore reiserfs such errors could be corrected.
I think some of these people are assuming your hard drive is broken. I'm not
sure what you're assuming, but if the hard drive is broken, I don't think ANY
file system can do anything about that.
At best, if the disk was in a RAID 5 array,
Posted for my friend Marko:
I've been reading up on ZFS with the idea to build a
home NAS.
My ideal home NAS would have:
- high performance via striping
- fault tolerance with selective use of multiple
copies attribute
- cheap by getting the most efficient space
utilization possible
I recently tried to import a b97 pool into a b98 upgraded version of that os,
and it failed because of some bug. So maybe try eliminating that kind of
problem by making sure to use the version that you know worked in the past.
Maybe you already did this.
div id=jive-html-wrapper-div
Yes, we've been pleasantly surprised by the demand.
But, that doesn't mean we're not anxious to expand
our ability to address such an important market as
OpenSolaris and ZFS.
We're actively working on OpenSolaris drivers. We
don't expect it to take long - I'll keep you posted.
-David
I'm wondering if this bug is fixed and if not, what is the bug number:
If your entire pool consisted of a single mirror of
two disks, A and B,
and you detached B at some point in the past, you
*should* be able to
recover the pool as it existed when you detached B.
However, I just
ried
It would be trivial to make the threshold a tunable,
but we're
trying to avoid this sort of thing. I don't want
there to be a
ZFS tuning guide, ever. That would mean we failed.
Jeff
harumph... http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide
:-)
Well now that that
The good news is that even though the answer to your question is no, it
doesn't matter because it sounds like what you are doing is a piece of cake :)
Given how cheap hardware is, and how modest your requirements sound, I expect
you could build multiple custom systems for the cost of an EMC
Just to confuse you more, I mean, give you another point of view:
- CPU: 1 Xeon Quad Core E5410 2.33GHz 12MB Cache 1333MHz
The reason the Xeon line is good is because it allows you to squeeze maximum
performance out of a given processor technology from Intel, possibly getting
the highest
[most people don't seem to know Solaris has ramdisk devices]
That is because only a select few are able to unravel the enigma wrapped in a
clue that is solaris :)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
There is no good ZFS gui. Nothing that is actively maintained, anyway.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Pulling cables only simulates pulling cables. If you
are having difficulty with cables falling out, then this problem cannot
be solved with software. It *must* be solved with hardware.
I don't think anyone is asking for software to fix cables that fall out...
they're asking for the OS to not
Okay, so your ACHI hardware is not using an ACHI driver in solaris. A crash
when pulling a cable is still not great, but it is understandable because that
driver is old and bad and doesn't support hot swapping at all.
So there are two things to do here. File a bug about how pulling a sata
Will I get markedly better performance with 5 drives (2^2+1) or 6 drives
2*(2^1+1) because the parity calculations are more efficient across 2^N
drives?
If only parity calculations stand to benefit, then it wouldn't make a
difference because your CPU is more than powerful enough to take
I got a 750 and sliced it and mirrored the other pieces.
Maybe you ran into a bug, because that situation would not be tested much in
the wild... or maybe you just bad lucked out and your computer toasted some
data.
Thanks Jeff. I hope my frustration in all this doesn't sound directed
at
Then I went and bought an Intel PCI Gigabit Ethernet card for 25€ which seems
to have solved the problem.
Is this really the case? If so that is an important clue to finding out why
virtualized opensolaris performance is so poor. I tried every network adapter
in virtualbox and vmware and
I mentioned this too, but on the performance forum:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=64907tstart=0
Unfortunately the performance forum has tumbleweeds blowing through it, so that
was probably the wrong place to complain. Not that people don't care about
performance, but
It looks pretty lively from my browser :-)
Now that you showed up ;)
In my case it is OpenSolaris in VirtualBox so I was expecting more cooperation,
or at least people striving to make them cooperate.
But like you said, this is likely just a case of OpenSolaris being optimized
for big iron
What do you mean about mirrored vdevs ? RAID1
hardware? Because I have only ICH9R and opensolaris
doesn't know about it.
No, he means a mirror created by zfs.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
It turns out that when you are in IDE compatability mode, having two
disks on the same 'controller' (c# in solaris) behaves just like real
IDE... Crap!
That is the second time I've seen solaris guess wrong and force what it thinks
is right. Solaris will also limit the size of an ATA drive if
You may all have 'shared human errors', but i dont
have that issue
whatsoever :) I find it quite interesting the issues
that you guys
bring up with these drives. All manufactured goods
suffer the same
pitfalls of production. Would you say that WD and
Seagate are the
front
Use froogle for price checking.
I don't know what chipsets are supported by opensolaris, but if I were you I'd
be looking hard at motherboards with as much integrated as possible. For
instance, for less than $100 you can get a mini-atx motherboard with 6 SATA
ports and onboard video. I found
One other thing I noticed is that OpenSolaris (.com) will
automatically install ZFS root for you. Will Nexenta do that?
yeah nexenta was the first opensolaris distro to have zfs root install and
snapshots and a modern package system, which all ties together into easy
upgrades.
This
This sounds like an important problem
Hi...
Here's my system:
2 Intel 3 Ghz 5160 dual-core cpu's
0 SATA 750 GB disks running as a ZFS RAIDZ2 pool
8 GB Memory
SunOS 5.11 snv_79a on a separate UFS mirror
ZFS pool version 10
No separate ZIL or ARC cache
ran
1. In zfs can you currently add more disks to an existing raidz? This is
important to me as i slowly add disks to my system one at a time.
No, but solaris and linux raid5 can do this (in linux, grow with mdadm).
2. in a raidz do all the disks have to be the same size?
I think this one has
I have 4x500G disks in a RAIDZ. I'd like to repurpose one of them
SYS1 124G 1.21T 29.9K /SYS1
This seems to be a simple task because RAID5/Z runs just fine when it is
missing one disk. Just format one disk any way that works (take the array
offline and do it with format or zpool, or boot
I'm not convinced that single bit flips are the common failure mode for disks.
I think the original suggestion might be for bad RAM more than bad disks. Just
about every home computer does not have ECC RAM, so as ZFS transitions from
enterprise to home, this (optional) feature sounds very
So I scrubbed the whole pool and it found a lot more corrupted files.
My condolences :)
General questions and comments about ZFS and data corruption:
I thought RAIDZ would correct data errors automatically with the parity data.
How wrong am I on that? Perhaps a parity correction was
I didn't expect miracles, but since WinRAR gave 13% compression
ZFS doesn't compress a block if it can't get a certain amount of return on it.
Since the default compression is less effective than RAR, you can bet ZFS is
seeing much less than 13% return.
I expect everything is working
Is this service something that we'd like to put into OpenSolaris
Heck yes, at least Indiana needs something like that. I guess nobody is
spearheading the Indiana data backup solution right now, but that work of
yours could be part of it.
To the user there is no difference between regularly
http://zfs.macosforge.org/
Good work to those involved :)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
such a minor feature
I don't think copying files is a minor feature.
Doubly so since the words I've read from Sun suggest that ZFS file systems
(or data sets or whatever they are called now) can be used in the way
directories on a normal file system are used.
This message posted from
2) Unstable APT integrated with ON build 79, give it a try!
Excellent progress!! But your website is out of date and I cannot find a
NexentaCP link on the download page. Only the old NexentaOS link. Also you
should update the news page so it looks like the project is active :)
This
So there is no current way to specify the creation of
a 3 disk raid-z
array with a known missing disk?
Can someone answer that? Or does the zpool command NOT accommodate the
creation of a degraded raidz array?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
ZFS has a smb server on the way, but there has been no real public information
about it released. Here is a sample of its existence:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2007/560/;jsessionid=F4061C9308088852992B7DE83CD9C1A3
This message posted from opensolaris.org
I consider myself an early adopter of ZFS and pushed
it hard on this
list and in real life with regards to iSCSI
integration, zfs
performance issues with latency there of, and how
best to use it with
NFS. Well, I finally get to talk more about the
ZFS-based product I've
been beta testing
Here's what I've done so far:
The obvious thing to test is the drive controller, so maybe you should do that
:)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
ZFS copies attribute could be used to make this easy, but with all the talk
of kernel panics on drive loss and non-guaranteed block placement across
different disks, I don't like ZFS copies. (see threads like
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2007-October/043279.html )
The
Any idea when the installer integration for ZFS
root/boot will happen?
Project Indiana will have it next week-ish, but I don't know about SXCE. SXCE
itself might disappear before it gets the zfs root installer...?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Sun's storage strategy:
1) Finish Indiana and distro constructor
2) (ship stuff using ZFS-Indiana)
3) Success
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
I asked this recently, but haven't done anything else about it:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=155583#155583
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
One or more devices could not be opened? I wonder if this has anything to do
with our problems here...:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=160589#160589
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
3) Forget PCI-Express -- if you have a free PCI-X (or
PCI)-slot. Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 (PCI-X cards are
(usually) plain-PCI-compatible; and this one is). It
has 8 ports, is natively plug-and-play-suported and
does not cost more than twice a si3132, and costs
only a fraction of other
This one might be better in the help forum/list :)
You will probably want to use the latest SXDE for that instead of Solaris 10.
It is a recent well-tested SXCE which is much newer than Solaris 10. Depending
on how good the Super Project Indiana OpenSolaris Milestone 1 Turbo turns out
at the
I think I might have run into the same problem. At the time I assumed I was
doing something wrong, but...
I made a b72 raidz out of three new 1gb virtual disks in vmware. I shut the vm
off, replaced one of the disks with a new 1.5gb virtual disk. No matter what
command I tried, I couldn't
Re: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6602947
Specifically this part:
[i]Create zpool /testpool/. Create zfs file system /testpool/testfs.
Right click on /testpool/testfs (filesystem) in nautilus and rename to testfs2.
Do zfs list. Note that only /testpool/testfs (filesystem) is
Just to answer one of my questions, df seems to work pretty well. That said
I still think the zpool creation tool would do well to list what it can create
zpools out of.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
That doesn't exist yet because everything about OpenSolaris is pretty young.
The demand is there though because there is a constant stream of people
interested in ZFS as a home file archive system.
By the time Indiana is off its feet, popularity will grow, the distro
constructor will exist,
My question is: Is there any interest in finishing RAID5/RAID6 for ZFS?
If there is no chance it will be integrated into ZFS at some point, I
won't bother finishing it.
Your work is as pure an example as any of what OpenSolaris should be about. I
think there should be no problem having a new
To expand on this:
The recommended use of whole disks is for drives with volatile write caches
where ZFS will enable the cache if it owns the whole disk.
Does ZFS really never use disk cache when working with a disk slice? Is there
any way to force it to use the disk cache?
This message
Unfortunately it only comes with 4 adapters, bare
metal adapters without any dampering /silencing and
so on...
...anyway I wanted to make it the most silent I
could, so I suspeded all the 10 disks (8 sata 320gb
and a little 2,5 pata root disk) with a flexible
wire, like I posted in this
For everyone else:
http://blogs.sun.com/timthomas/entry/samba_and_swat_in_solaris#comments
It looks like nevada 70b will be the next Solaris Express Developer Edition
(SXDE) which should also drop shortly and should also have the ZFS ACL fix, but
to find the full source integration you have to
Richard, thanks for the pointer to the tests in
'/usr/sunvts', as this
is the first I have heard of them. They look quite
comprehensive.
I will give them a trial when I have some free time.
Thanks
Nigel Smith
pmemtest- Physical Memory Test
ramtest - Memory DIMMs (RAM)
This is a problem for replacement, not creation.
You're talking about solving the problem in the future? I'm talking about
working around the problem today. :) This isn't a fluffy dream problem. I
ran into this last month when an RMA'd drive wouldn't fit back into a RAID5
array. RAIDZ is
The situation: a three 500gb disk raidz array. One disk breaks and you replace
it with a new one. But the new 500gb disk is slightly smaller than the
smallest disk in the array.
I presume the disk would not be accepted into the array because the zpool
replace entry on the zpool man page
The ZFS version pages (
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=ensafe=offrlz=1B3GGGL_enCA220CA220q=+site:www.opensolaris.org+zfs+version
) are undocumented on the main page, as far as I can see.
The root /versions/ directory should be listed on the main ZFS page somewhere,
and contain a list of all
Thanks for the comprehensive replies!
I'll need some baby speak on this one though:
The recommended use of whole disks is for drives with volatile write caches
where ZFS will enable the cache if it owns the whole disk. There may be an
RFE lurking here, but it might be tricky to correctly
So that leaves us with a Samba vs NFS issue (not
related to
ZFS). We know that NFS is able to create file _at
most_ at
one file per server I/O latency. Samba appears better
and this is
what we need to investigate. It might be better in a
way
that NFS can borrow (maybe through some better
On the heels of the LZO compression thread, I bring you a 7zip compression
thread!
Shown here as the open source system with the best compression ratio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression#Comparative
Shown here on a SPARC system with the best compression ratios and good CPU
usage:
Intending to experiment with ZFS, I have been
struggling with what
should be a simple download routine.
Sun Download Manager leaves a great deal to be
desired.
In the Online Help for Sun Download Manager there's a
section on
troubleshooting, but if it causes *anyone* this much
Is there zfs available in boot with b64 ?
If you are asking if the installer supports installing to a zfs drive, I
believe the answer is still no :)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Personally I would go with ZFS entirely in most cases.
That's the rule of thumb :) If you have a fast enough CPU and enough RAM, do
everything with ZFS. This sounds koolaid-induced, but you'll need nothing else
because ZFS does it all.
My second personal rule of thumb concerns RAIDZ
Onboard RAID solutions actually do all their work on your CPU, so you won't be
using that for anything if you use ZFS. You just want them acting like regular
SATA controllers.
Just run the Solaris hardware compatibility thinger (google it), or compare
your hardware to the supported hardware
You've delivered us to awesometown, Brain.
zfsboot.tar.bz2 is a vmware image made on a VMWare Server 1.0.1
machine.
But oops, what is the root login password?! :)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Now the original question by MC I belive was about providing
VMware and/or Xen image with guest OS being snv_62 with / as zfs.
This is true.
I'm not sure what Jim meant about the host system needing to support zfs.
Maybe you're on a different page, Jim :)
I will setup a VM image that can
Two conflicting answers to the same question? I guess we need someone to break
the tie :)
Hello,
I have been reading alot of good things about Raid-z,
but before I jump into it I have one unanswered
question i can't find a clear answer for.
Is it possible to enlarge the initial RAID
Running RAID5 like that is strongly inadvisable (to the point of don't
bother), so doing it with RAIDZ would be a similarly bad idea. You could try
another cheapo/junk controller card to verify whether or not it is a shared
resource problem ;)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
o I've got a modified Solaris miniroot with ZFS
functionality which
takes up about 60 MB (The compressed image, which
GRUB uses, is less
than 30MB). Solaris boots entirely into RAM. From
poweron to full
functionality, it takes about 45 seconds to boot on a
very modest 1GHz
Cyrix
My question is not related directly to ZFS but
maybe
you know the answer.
Currently I can run the ZFS Web administration
interface only locally - by pointing my browser to
[i]https://localhost:6789/zfs/[/i]
What should be done to enable an access to
[i]https://zfshost:6789/zfs/[/i]
68 matches
Mail list logo
