On 4/24/07, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
I didn't spot anything that reads it from /etc/system. Appreciate any
pointers.
The beauty, and curse, of /etc/system is that modules do not need to create
an explicit reader.
Grr I suspected after I replied that
Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
On 4/24/07, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
I didn't spot anything that reads it from /etc/system. Appreciate any
pointers.
The beauty, and curse, of /etc/system is that modules do not need to
create
an explicit reader.
Grr I suspected
On 4/20/07, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Wee,
Friday, April 20, 2007, 5:20:00 AM, you wrote:
WYT On 4/20/07, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can limit how much memory zfs can use for its caching.
WYT Indeed, but that memory will still be locked. How can you
Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
On 4/23/07, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bash-3.00# mdb -k
Loading modules: [ unix krtld genunix dtrace specfs ufs sd pcisch md
ip sctp usba fcp fctl qlc ssd crypto lofs zfs random ptm cpc nfs ]
segmap_percent/D
segmap_percent:
segmap_percent: 12
(it's static
On 4/20/07, Tim Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My initial reaction is that the world has got by without file systems
that can do this for a long time...so I don't see the absence of this as
a big deal. On the other hand, it hard to argue against a feature that
I admit that this is typically
Tim Thomas wrote:
I don't know enough about how ZFS manages memory other than what I have
seen on this alias (I just joined a couple of weeks ago) which seems to
indicate it is a memory hog...as is VxFS so we are in good company. I
am not against keeping data in memory so long as it has also
My initial reaction is that the world has got by without
[email|cellphone|
other technology] for a long time ... so not a big deal.
Well, I did say I viewed it as an indefensible position :-)
Now shall we debate if the world is a better place because of cell
phones :-P
On 20-Apr-07, at 5:54 AM, Tim Thomas wrote:
Hi Wee
I run a setup of SAM-FS for our main file server and we loved the
backup/restore parts that you described.
That is great to hear.
The main concerns I have with SAM fronting the entire conversation is
data integrity. Unlike ZFS, SAMFS
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
zfs send as backup is probably not generally acceptable: you can't
expect to extract a single file out of it (at least not out of an
incremental zfs send), but that's certainly done routinely with ufsdump,
tar, cpio, ...
Then an incremental star
Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't believe that there are any good/useful solutions which are free
that will store both the data and all the potential meta-data in the
filesystem in a recoverable way.
I think that star ( Joerg Schilling ) has a good grasp on all the
Hello Tim,
Thursday, April 19, 2007, 10:32:53 AM, you wrote:
TT Hi
TT This is a bit off topic...but as Bill mentioned SAM-FS...my job at Sun
TT is working in a group focused on ISV's in the archiving space (Symantec
TT Enterprise Vault, Open Text LEA, CA Message Manager, FileNet, Mobius,
TT
Hello Nicolas,
Wednesday, April 18, 2007, 10:12:17 PM, you wrote:
NW 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
Dennis Clarke wrote:
So now here we are ten years later with a new filesystem and I have no
way to back it up in such a fashion that I can restore it perfectly. I
can take snapshots. I can do a strange send and receive but the
process is not stable From zfs (1M) we see :
The format of the
Hi Tim,
I run a setup of SAM-FS for our main file server and we loved the
backup/restore parts that you described.
The main concerns I have with SAM fronting the entire conversation is
data integrity. Unlike ZFS, SAMFS does not do end to end checksumming.
We have considered the setup you
Hello Wee,
Friday, April 20, 2007, 4:50:08 AM, you wrote:
WYT Hi Tim,
WYT I run a setup of SAM-FS for our main file server and we loved the
WYT backup/restore parts that you described.
WYT The main concerns I have with SAM fronting the entire conversation is
WYT data integrity. Unlike ZFS,
It seems that neither Legato nor NetBackup seem to lend themselves well to the
notion of lots of file systems within storage pools from an administration
perspective. Is there a preferred methodology for doing traditional backups to
tape from ZFS where there are hundreds or thousands of
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
Can we discuss this with a few objectives ? Like define backup and
then describe mechanisms that may achieve one? Or a really big
question that I guess I have to ask, do we even care anymore?
/lurk
Personally I think you would benefit from some slightly different terms.
I would
On 4/18/07, Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Nicolas Williams wrote:
Also, why not just punt to NDMP?
While I like NDMP, the protocol is just a transport for blobs of data
in vendor-specific data formats. We could put a ufsdump or star or
'zfs send' bag-o-bits in there, and call it ours. So it's a part of
a solution, but not a
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
Okay .. that is disk to disk or system to system. I can only assume
that you have large pipes of bandwidth ( 10 GE ) to move data around
with.
System to system. No, we have 100Mbit to the backup system. The systems
being backed up are small though, they are primarily people's desktops.
The
On 18-Apr-07, at 5:22 PM, J.P. King wrote:
Can we discuss this with a few objectives ? Like define backup and
then describe mechanisms that may achieve one? Or a really big
question that I guess I have to ask, do we even care anymore?
/lurk
Personally I think you would benefit from some
23 matches
Mail list logo
