On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 09:13:24PM -0600, Keith Bierman wrote:
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:58 PM 6/5/, Brad Diggs wrote:
Hi Keith,
Sure you can truncate some files but that effectively corrupts
the files in our case and would cause more harm than good. The
only files in our volume are data
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 02:19:29PM -0600, Lori Alt wrote:
Clarifying further: the install support for zfs root file
systems went into build 90, but because the current install
code is closed source, the effect of that integration will not be
seen until the build 90 SXCE is released. At that
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 01:59:56PM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
So it's pushed back to build 90 now?
Evidently, but build 90 is closed, and the bits are in. The WOS images
for build 90 are not out yet, but that's a matter of time; the bits are
in.
___
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 04:33:29PM +0200, Simon Breden wrote:
Thanks Darren, that's good to know.
If multiple snapshots reference (own?) the same file, what's the quickest
way to zap that file from all snapshots?
There isn't a way to do that at all, not short of deleting the actual
snapshots
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 06:39:00PM -0700, George Wilson wrote:
Solaris Installation Guide
System Administration Guide: Basic
ZFS Administration Guide
System Administration Guide: Devices and File Systems
Where can I get the updated guides?
For further
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 11:38:03PM -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
Can zfs send utilize multiple-streams of data transmission (or some sort
of multipleness)?
Interesting read for background
http://people.planetpostgresql.org/xzilla/index.php?/archives/338-guid.html
Note: zfs send takes 3
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 01:52:45AM -0500, Rob Logan wrote:
Because then I have to compute yesterday's date to do the
incremental dump.
snaps=15
today=`date +%j`
# to change the second day of the year from 002 to 2
today=`expr $today + 0`
Er, can't this be confused with octal? Hmm,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 07:55:45AM -0800, Joe Blount wrote:
* Application aware/driven CDP solves the file sanity challenge by
being explicitly told by the app. But this will have an inherently
limited market because it relies on application support. Basically:
it works, but requires
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 03:57:29PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:54:29AM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
Nathan Kroenert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you indicating that the filesystem know's or should know what
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:33:13AM -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Kyle McDonald wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would such snapshots appear and where? (Again, I disliked the
file;X
notation and the fact that a manual purge was required).
I agree about
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:57:12PM -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
Make it an extended attribute called .zfs/snapshot/.
Maybe I'm not up on how extended attributes work, but I don't see how
that would let you review all the versions that file might have had. Use
grep
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:49:56PM +1100, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
It occurred to me that we are likely missing the point here because Uwe
is thinking of this as a One User on a System sort of perspective,
whereas most of the rest of us are thinking of it from a 'Solaris'
perspective, where
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 01:13:06PM -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
man runat
Oh! Cool!
Is that the only way to access those attributes? or just the one that's
most likely to work?
man fsattr
:)
I can see how for running commands it'd be useful
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:31:09PM -0600, Chris Kirby wrote:
Er, good question! I think the shells would have to support it. A good
question for Roland :)
The shells don't actually have to care:
$ cd /tmp
$ touch f1
$ runat f1 sh
I know that works. But why start a new process when
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:31:09PM -0600, Chris Kirby wrote:
The shells don't actually have to care:
$ cd /tmp
$ touch f1
$ runat f1 sh
I know that works. But why start a new process when the shell could
have a built-in (or mod
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 01:45:41AM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand any of this. But I never pretended I did.
Well, if you want some feature then you should understand what it is.
Sure continuous data protection sounds real good, but you have to
understand that any CDP solution
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 06:34:04PM -0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
The rub is this: how do you know when a file edit/modify has completed?
Not to me, I'm sorry, this is task of the engineer, the implementer.
(See 'atomic', as above.) It would be a shame if a file system never
knew if the operation
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 05:54:29AM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
Nathan Kroenert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you indicating that the filesystem know's or should know what an
application is doing??
Maybe snapshot file whenever a write-filedescriptor is closed or
somesuch?
Again. Not
How do you use CDP backups? How do you decide at which write(2) (or
dirty page write, or fsync(2), ...) to restore some file? What if the
app has many files? Point-in-time? Sure, but since you can't restore
all application state (unless you're checkpointing processes too) then
how can you be
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 01:54:58PM -0800, Andrew Tefft wrote:
Let's say I have a zfs called pool/backups and it contains two
zfs'es, pool/backups/server1 and pool/backups/server2
I have sharenfs=on for pool/backups and it's inherited by the
sub-zfs'es. I can then nfs mount
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:14:15PM +, Tim Foster wrote:
Filesystems are grouped together either by setting their names as a
space separated list in an SMF instance property, or queried dynamically
SMF supports multi-valued properties. I think you should use that,
rather than
Are there so many files that the glob expansion results in too large an
argument list for cp?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 08:05:56AM -0800, sudarshan sridhar wrote:
My exact doubt is, if COW is default behavior of ZFS then does COWd
data written to the same physical drive where the filesystem
resides?
Just to clarify: there is no way to disable COW in ZFS.
If so the physical
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 07:20:30PM +1100, Darren Reed wrote:
Frank Hofmann wrote:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/rename.html
ERRORS
The rename() function shall fail if:
[ ... ]
[EXDEV]
[CX] The links named by new and old are on different
Oof, I see this has been discussed since (and, actually, IIRC it was
discussed a long time ago too).
Anyways, IMO, this requires a new syscall or syscalls:
xdevrename(2)
xdevcopy(2)
and then mv(1) can do:
if (rename(old, new) != 0) {
if (xdevrename(old, new) !=
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:45:55PM -0800, can you guess? wrote:
There aren't free alternatives in linux or freebsd
that do what zfs does, period.
No one said that there were: the real issue is that there's not much
reason to care, since the available solutions don't need to be
If you
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 10:27:18AM -0800, Tim Cook wrote:
So now that cifs has finally been released in b77, anyone happen to
It hasn't been released. It was integrated into build 77.
have any documentation on setup. I know the initial share is
The documentation will be available in the
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:56:26AM -0700, Tim Spriggs wrote:
Time for on board FPGAs!
Heh!
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:44:21AM -0700, John Plocher wrote:
Lori Alt wrote:
I'm not surprised that having /usr in a separate pool failed.
The design of zfs boot largely assumes that root, /usr, and
/var are all on the same pool, and it is unlikely that we would
do the work to support
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:54:21PM +, A Darren Dunham wrote:
I wonder how much this would change if a functional pivot-root
mechanism were available. It be handy nice to boot from flash, import a
pool, then make that the running root.
Does anyone know if that's a target of any
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 04:31:01PM +0200, Roch - PAE wrote:
It does, which leads to the core problem. Why do we have to store the
exact same data twice in memory (i.e., once in the ARC, and once in
the shared memory segment that Oracle uses)?
We do not retain 2 copies of the same
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:49:12PM +0200, Roch - PAE wrote:
...memory utilisation... OK so we should implement the 'lost cause' rfe.
In all cases, ZFS must not steal pages from other memory consumers :
6488341 ZFS should avoiding growing the ARC into trouble
So the DB memory pages
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 06:59:56PM +0200, Roch - PAE wrote:
Nicolas Williams writes:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:49:12PM +0200, Roch - PAE wrote:
So the DB memory pages should not be _contented_ for.
What if your executable text, and pretty much everything lives on ZFS?
You don't
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:42:53AM +0200, Roch - PAE wrote:
Rayson Ho writes:
2) Also, direct I/O is faster because it avoid double buffering.
A piece of data can be in one buffer, 2 buffers, 3
buffers. That says nothing about performance. More below.
So I guess you mean DIO is
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 12:33:00PM -0400, Mark J Musante wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Michael Schuster wrote:
I recently started seeing zfs chattiness at boot time: reading zfs config
and something like mounting zfs filesystems (n/n).
This was added recently because ZFS can take a while to
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:22:04PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:40:05PM +0200, Roch - PAE wrote:
Tuning should not be done in general and Best practices
should be followed.
So get very much acquainted with this first :
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 02:24:56PM -0700, Adam Leventhal wrote:
I'm a bit surprised by these results. Assuming relatively large blocks
written, RAID-Z and RAID-5 should be laid out on disk very similarly
resulting in similar read performance.
Did you compare the I/O characteristic of both?
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 12:56:44AM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 11:20:52PM +0100, Peter Tribble wrote:
My understanding of the raid-z performance issue is that it requires
full-stripe reads in order to validate the checksum. [...]
No, checksum is independent
The complaint is not new, and the problem isn't quotas or lack thereof.
The problem is that remote filesystem clients can't cope with frequent
changes to a server's share list, which is just ZFS's filesystems are
cheap approach promotes.
Basically ZFS was ahead of everyone's implementation of
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 11:25:38PM +0100, Stephen Usher wrote:
Nicolas Williams:
Unfortunately for us at the coal face it's very rare that we can do the
ideal thing. Quotas are part of the problem but the main problem is that
there is currently no way over overcoming the interoperability
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 06:20:55PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that you mention Nuclear weapons, am I really the only one who
is amused by the uproar about a B52 with nukes flying over the US?
Europe does not have the anti-nuke opinion set market cornered, ya know?
Until the Minuteman
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:18:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/06/2007 01:14:56 PM:
It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know
what
will happen in court (take the example of the recent court decision that
all data in RAM be held
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 01:38:22PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If that's the correct reading of the story then the story is very badly
written. Or am I misreading the story?
Hmmm, the order itself goes on and on about RAM. I think the judge
should have been clearer that the issue
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 04:16:50PM -0400, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Sep 6, 2007, at 14:48, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Allowing for technical illiteracy in judges I think the obvious
interpretation is that discoverable data should be retained and that
but it exists only in RAM is not a defense
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:45:01PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That but it existed only in RAM in my servers should not be a defense
for failing to retain discoverable evidence is distinct from the issue
of what constitutes discoverable evidence.
But only if you were told you needed to
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:43:38PM -0500, Rob Windsor wrote:
http://news.com.com/NetApp+files+patent+suit+against+Sun/2100-1014_3-6206194.html
I'm curious how many of those patent filings cover technologies that
they carried over from Auspex.
While it is legal for them to do so, it is a
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:18:05AM -0700, Russ Petruzzelli wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a zfs, zones, or solaris/nfs problem... So I'll
start on this alias...
Problem:
I am seeing file copies from one machine to another grab an older file.
(Worded differently: The cp command is not
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 05:27:44PM -0500, Haudy Kazemi wrote:
Wouldn't ZFS's being an integrated filesystem make it easier for it to
identify the file types vs. a standard block device with a filesystem
overlaid upon it?
How? The API to ZFS that most everything uses is the POSIX API.
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 03:42:03PM -0700, Darren Dunham wrote:
Wouldn't ZFS's being an integrated filesystem make it easier for it to
identify the file types vs. a standard block device with a filesystem
overlaid upon it?
I'm not sure. I would think that most applications are going to
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:19:03PM -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
Couldn't wait for ZFS delegation, so I cobbled something together; see
attachment.
The *real* ZFS delegation code was integrated into Nevada this morning.
I've placed a little overview in my blog
Oh, and thanks! ZFS delegations rocks.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 12:55:15AM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:31:28PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:18:05PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Couldn't wait for ZFS delegation, so I cobbled something together; see
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:45:07AM +0200, Roland Mainz wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
But will ksh or ksh93 know that this script must not source $ENV?
Erm, I don't know what's the correct behaviour for Solaris ksh88... but
for ksh93 it's clearly defined that ${ENV} and /etc/ksh.kshrc
Couldn't wait for ZFS delegation, so I cobbled something together; see
attachment.
Nico
--
#!/bin/ksh
ARG0=$0
PROG=${0##*/}
OIFS=$IFS
# grep -q rocks, but it lives in xpg4...
OPATH=$PATH
PATH=/usr/xpg4/bin:/bin:/sbin
# Configuration (see usage message below)
#
# This is really based on how a
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:18:05PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Couldn't wait for ZFS delegation, so I cobbled something together; see
attachment.
I forgot to slap on the CDDL header...
#!/bin/ksh
#
# CDDL HEADER START
#
# The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
# Common
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:31:28PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:18:05PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Couldn't wait for ZFS delegation, so I cobbled something together; see
attachment.
I forgot to slap on the CDDL header...
And I forgot to add a -p option
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 02:09:55PM -0700, John Plocher wrote:
eric kustarz wrote:
We specifically didn't allow the admin the ability to truncate/prune the
log as then it becomes unreliable - ooops i made a mistake, i better
clear the log and file the bug against zfs
I understand -
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 10:04:34AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
But still, how is tar/SSH any
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
But still, how is tar/SSH any more multi-threaded than tar/NFS?
It's not that it is, but that NFS sync semantics and ZFS sync semantics
conspire against single-threaded performance.
___
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:21:40PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote:
But still, how is tar/SSH any more multi-threaded than tar/NFS?
It's not that it is, but that NFS
I left a comment on Lori's blog to the effect that splitting the
namespace would complicate LU tools. Perhaps we need a zfs clone -r to
match zfs snapshot -r?
Nico
--
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 03:47:55PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Maybe with a definition of what a backup is and then some way to
achieve it. As far as I know the only real backup is one that can be
tossed into a vault and locked away for seven years. Or any arbitrary
amount of time within in
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 04:32:18PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
I just finished installing Solaris 10 and ZFS at a manufacturing site
that needs fast cheap storage. Its real tough to argue with ZFS once
you see it in action. They were sold and I went ahead with a few
terabytes of storage
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 01:00:00PM -0400, Rayson Ho wrote:
Apple is integrating DTrace too, and yet I don't see more than 10% of
the Mac users writing D programs.
But 100% of MacOS users might end up using DTrace without knowing it.
___
zfs-discuss
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:47:46PM -0400, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 14:09 -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
What are your suggestions?
I am currently working on adding a number of the BSD flags into ZFS.
The existance of the FreeBSD
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:
On 4/11/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:07:33PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:
Now, all we have to do is respect each other. End of problem.
I think this sub-thread started with a comment by you about someone
else's kneejerk anti-GPL comments.
I don't recall any such comments in this thread. I think you might
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:08:07AM -0700, Adam Leventhal wrote:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 03:34:13PM +0200, Constantin Gonzalez wrote:
- RAID-Z is _very_ slow when one disk is broken.
Do you have data on this? The reconstruction should be relatively cheap
especially when compared with the
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 03:27:39PM -0700, Anton B. Rang wrote:
All file systems provide writes by default which are
atomic with respect to readers of the file.
Surely, only in the absence of a crash - otherwise,
POSIX would require implementation of transactional
write semantics in
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 06:55:17PM -0700, Anton B. Rang wrote:
It's not defined by POSIX (or Solaris). You can rely on being able to
atomically write a single disk block (512 bytes); anything larger than
that is risky. Oh, and it has to be 512-byte aligned.
File systems with overwrite
On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 11:05:44AM -0500, ozan s. yigit wrote:
i am forced to reinstall s10u3 on my x4500. SP 1.1.1. exported zpool,
and discovered during the reinstall that the controller numbers have
changed. what used to be c5t0d0 is now c6t0d0. it it happens the exported
zpool is using
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:05:08AM -0800, Eric Schrock wrote:
The slow part of zpool import is actually discovering the pool
configuration. This involves examining every device on the system (or
every device within a 'import -d' directory) and seeing if it has any
labels. Internally, the
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:10:15AM -0800, Eric Schrock wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 12:06:14PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Couldn't all that tasting be done in parallel?
Yep, that's certainly possible. Sounds like a perfect feature for
someone in the community to work on :-) Simply
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:32:22AM -0800, Eric Schrock wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 12:27:48PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
What is slow, BTW? The open(2)s of the devices? Or the label reading?
And is there a way to do async open(2)s w/o a thread per-open? The
open(2) man page
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 11:15:33AM -0800, Tor wrote:
I have read the FAQ, and it states that encrypted data can't be
compressed. But is there any point in using compression on my media
file server, that will store ripped DVD's (which are compressed in
their default state), our digital photos
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 10:46:38PM -0800, Vikrant Kumar Choudhary wrote:
I am using Solaris 10 and i am not a super user. How do i know which
filesytem ,i am using. and can i use ZFS filesystem locally. I mean in
case my admin is not using that can i test it locally.
df(1M) and mount(1M) show
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 04:20:58PM -0800, Eric Schrock wrote:
Seems like there are a two pieces you're suggesting here:
1. Some sort of background process to proactively find errors on disks
in use by ZFS. This will be accomplished by a background scrubbing
option, dependent on the
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 08:46:34AM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
My current plan is that once set the encryption property that describes
which algorithm (mechanism actually: algorithm, key length and mode, eg
aes-128-ccm) can not be changed, it would be inherited by any clones.
Creating new
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 12:25:04AM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 11:00:07AM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Neil Perrin wrote:
No it's not the final version or even the latest!
The current on disk format version is 3. However, it hasn't
diverged much and the
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 05:15:28PM -0700, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Could the replication engine eventually be integrated more tightly
with ZFS? That would be slick alternative to send/recv.
But a continuous zfs send/recv would be cool too. In fact, I think ZFS
tightly integrated with SNDR
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 01:11:52PM -0800, Brian Gao wrote:
Which structure in ZFS stores file property info such as permissions, owner
etc? What is its relationship with uberblock, block pointer or metadnode etc?
I thought it would be dnode. However, I don't know which structure in dnode
is
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 09:31:34PM +, James Blackburn wrote:
Or look at pages 46-50 of the ZFS on-disk format document:
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/ondiskformatfinal.pdf
There's an final version? That link appears to be broken (and the
lastest version linked from the
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:32:14PM +0100, Roch - PAE wrote:
The only benefit of using a HW RAID controller with ZFS is that it
reduces the I/O that the host needs to do, but the trade off is that ZFS
cannot do combinatorial parity reconstruction so that it could only
detect errors, not
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:41:25PM +0100, Roch - PAE wrote:
I think I got the point. Mine was that if the data travels a
single time toward the storage and is corrupted along the
way then there will be no hope of recovering it since the
array was given bad data. Having the data travel twice
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 10:57:17AM +0800, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
On 1/25/07, Bryan Cantrill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
after all, what was ZFS going to do with that expensive but useless
hardware RAID controller? ...
I almost rolled over reading this.
This is exactly what I went through
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 09:52:05AM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
The only benefit of using a HW RAID controller with ZFS is that it
reduces the I/O that the host needs to do, but the trade off is that ZFS
cannot do combinatorial parity reconstruction so that it could
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 04:49:38PM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jeremy Teo wrote:
I'm defining zpool split as the ability to divide a pool into 2
separate pools, each with identical FSes. The typical use case would
be to split a N disk mirrored pool into a N-1 pool and a 1 disk pool,
and
On Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 08:45:23AM -0500, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
I think your paranoia is indeed running a bit high if the alternative is
that some blocks escape bleaching forever when they were freed shortly
before a crash.
Lazy bg bleaching of freed blocks is not enough if you're really
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:31:59PM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
I like the idea, I really do, but it will be s expensive because of
ZFS' COW model. Not only file removal or truncation will call bleaching,
but every single file system modification... Heh, well,
On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:47:07PM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
James makes a good argument that this scheme won't suffice for customers
who need that level of assurance. I'm inclined to agree. For customers
who don't need that level of assurance then encryption
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 02:04:37PM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
In case it wasn't clear I am NOT proposing a UI like this:
$ zfs bleach ~/Documents/company-finance.odp
Instead ~/Documents or ~ would be a ZFS file system with a policy set
something like this:
# zfs set erase=file:zero
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 04:37:36PM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
I think you are saying it should have INHERITY set to YES and EDIT set
to NO. We don't currently have any properties like that but crypto will
need this as well - for a very similar reason with clones.
What I mean is that if
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 03:09:03PM -0500, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Tuesday, December 19, 2006 01:54:56 PM + Darren J Moffat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I think having this in the VOP/FOP layer is interesting it isn't
the problem I was trying to solve and to be completely
IMO:
- The hardest problem in the case of bleaching individual files or
datasets is dealing with snapshots/clones:
- blocks not shared with parent/child snapshots can be bleached with
little trouble, of course.
- But what about shared blocks?
IMO we have two options:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 05:44:08PM -0500, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Monday, December 18, 2006 11:32:37 AM -0600 Nicolas Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say go for both, (a) and (b). Of course, (b) may not be easy to
implement.
Another option would be to warn the user and set
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 06:46:09PM -0500, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Monday, December 18, 2006 05:16:28 PM -0600 Nicolas Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or an iovec-style specification. But really, how often will one prefer
this to truncate-and-bleach? Also, the to-be-bleached
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 03:02:59PM -0500, Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
So I rebuilt my production mail server as Solaris 10 06/06 with zfs, it ran
for three months, and it's had no hardware errors. But my zfs file system
seems to have died a quiet death. Sun engineering response was to point to
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 08:03:33PM -0500, Toby Thain wrote:
As others have pointed out, you wouldn't have reached this point with
redundancy - the file would have remained intact despite the hardware
failure. It is strictly correct that to restore the data you'd need
to refer to a
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:32:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, we have considered this. On both SPARC and x86, there will be
a way to specify the root file system (i.e., the bootable dataset) to be
booted,
at either the GRUB prompt (for x86) or the OBP prompt (for SPARC).
If
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:00:01AM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
I think we first need to define what state up actually is. Is it the
kernel booted ? Is it the root file system mounted ? Is it we reached
milestone all ? Is it we reached milestone all with no services in
maintenance ?
201 - 300 of 361 matches
Mail list logo
