On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
LOL. Well, for what it's worth, there are three common pronunciations for
btrfs. Butterfs, Betterfs, and B-Tree FS (because it's based on b-trees.)
Check wikipedia. (This isn't
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus
Is it really B-Tree based? Apple's HFS+ is B-Tree based and falls
apart (in terms of performance) when you get too many objects in one
FS, which is specifically what drove us to
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 14:40, Paul Kraus p...@kraus-haus.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
LOL. Well, for what it's worth, there are three common pronunciations for
btrfs. Butterfs, Betterfs, and B-Tree
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus
Is it really B-Tree based? Apple's HFS+ is B-Tree based and falls
apart
From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
B-trees should be logarithmic time, which is the best O() you can possibly
achieve. So if HFS+ is dog slow, it's an implementation detail and not a
general fault of b-trees.
Hash tables can do much better than O(log N) for searching:
LOL. Well, for what it's worth, there are three common pronunciations for
btrfs. Butterfs, Betterfs, and B-Tree FS (because it's based on b-trees.)
Check wikipedia. (This isn't really true, but I like to joke, after
saying something like that, I wrote the wikipedia page just now.) ;-)
On 11/13/2011 05:18 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
LOL. Well, for what it's worth, there are three common pronunciations for
btrfs. Butterfs, Betterfs, and B-Tree FS (because it's based on b-trees.)
Check wikipedia. (This isn't really true, but I like to joke, after
saying something like that, I
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Liu
Why not give some tolerance to Btrfs? You can kindly drop an email to
its mail list for any issue you are not satisfied with.
Satirize or lampoon does not make sense to any open
Paul Kraus wrote:
My main reasons for using zfs are pretty basic compared to some here
What are they ? (the reasons for using ZFS)
All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS, and
it's one that is clearly being completely ignored by btrfs: ease of use. The
zfs
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Linder, Doug
doug.lin...@merchantlink.com wrote:
Paul Kraus wrote:
My main reasons for using zfs are pretty basic compared to some here
What are they ? (the reasons for using ZFS)
All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS, and
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Paul Kraus p...@kraus-haus.org wrote:
The command syntax paradigm of zfs (command sub-command object
parameters) is not unique to zfs, but seems to have been the way of
doing things in Solaris 10. The _new_ functions of Solaris 10 were
all this way (to the best
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug
All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS,
and it's
one that is clearly being completely ignored by btrfs: ease of use. The
zfs
command set is
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug
All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS,
On Oct 18, 2011, at 6:35 PM, David Magda wrote:
If we've found one bad disk, what are our options?
Live with it or replace it :-)
-- richard
--
ZFS and performance consulting
http://www.RichardElling.com
VMworld Copenhagen, October 17-20
OpenStorage Summit, San Jose, CA, October 24-27
LISA
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 08:40:59AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
fsck verifies the logical consistency of a filesystem. For UFS, this
includes: used data blocks are allocated to exactly one file,
directory entries point to valid inodes, allocated inodes have at
least one link, the number of
Thank you. The following is the best layman's explanation as to
_why_ ZFS does not have an fsck equivalent (or even needs one). On the
other hand, there are situations where you really do need to force ZFS
to do something that may not be agood idea, but is the best of a bad
set of choices. Hence
On Wed, October 19, 2011 08:15, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
Fsck can only fix known file system inconsistencies in file system
structures. Because there is no atomicity of operations in UFS and other
file systems it is possible that when you remove a file, your system can
crash between
On 10/18/11 03:31 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Peter Tribble
peter.trib...@gmail.com mailto:peter.trib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms
mailto:t...@cook.ms wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter
I'd argue that from a *developer* point of view, an fsck tool for ZFS might
well be useful. Isn't that what zdb is for? :-)
But ordinary administrative users should never need something like this, unless
they have encountered a bug in ZFS itself. (And bugs are as likely to exist in
the
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Garrett D'Amore
garrett.dam...@nexenta.com wrote:
I'd argue that from a *developer* point of view, an fsck tool for ZFS might
well be useful. Isn't that what zdb is for? :-)
But ordinary administrative users should never need something like this,
unless
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:13:56AM -0400, David Magda wrote:
On Wed, October 19, 2011 08:15, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
Fsck can only fix known file system inconsistencies in file system
structures. Because there is no atomicity of operations in UFS and other
file systems it is possible
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Harry Putnam
FreeNAS and freebsd.
Maybe you can give a little synopsis of those too. I mean when it
comes to utilizing zfs; is it much the same as if running it on
solaris?
For somebody
On 10/18/11 13:18, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
* btrfs is able to balance. (after adding new blank devices, rebalance, so
the data workload are distributed across all the devices.) zfs is not
able to do this yet.
ZFS does slightly biases new vdevs for new writes so that we will get to
a more
2011-10-18 16:26, Darren J Moffat пишет:
On 10/18/11 13:18, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
* btrfs is able to balance. (after adding new blank devices,
rebalance, so
the data workload are distributed across all the devices.) zfs is not
able to do this yet.
ZFS does slightly biases new vdevs for
On 10/18/11 14:04, Jim Klimov wrote:
2011-10-18 16:26, Darren J Moffat пишет:
On 10/18/11 13:18, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
* btrfs is able to balance. (after adding new blank devices,
rebalance, so
the data workload are distributed across all the devices.) zfs is not
able to do this yet.
ZFS
I looked into btrfs some time ago for the same reasons. I had a Linux system
that I wanted to do more intelligent things with storage.
However, I reverted to Ext3/4 and MD because of the portions of btrfs that
haven't been completed. It seems that btrfs development is very slow, which
Edward Ned Harvey opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com
writes:
I recently put my first btrfs system into production. Here are the
similarities/differences I noticed different between btrfs and zfs:
Great input.. thanks for the details.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Darren J Moffat
darr...@opensolaris.org wrote:
On 10/18/11 14:04, Jim Klimov wrote:
2011-10-18 16:26, Darren J Moffat пишет:
ZFS does slightly biases new vdevs for new writes so that we will get
to a more even spread. It doesn't go and move already written
Gregory Shaw greg.s...@oracle.com writes:
I looked into btrfs some time ago for the same reasons. I had a Linux
system that I wanted to do more intelligent things with storage.
Great details, thanks.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Gregory Shaw wrote:
I'm seriously thinking about converting the Linux system in question
into a FreeBSD system so that I can use ZFS.
FreeBSD is a wonderfully stable, coherent, and well-documented system
which has stood the test of time and has an excellent development
On 10/18/11 07:18 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Harry Putnam
As a common slob who isn't very skilled, I like to see some commentary
from some of the pros here as to any comparison of zfs against
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson bfwil...@doit.wisc.edu wrote:
I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used to
make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24x7 5+ 9s uptime environments.
Where ZFS doesn't have an fsck command - and that really used to bug me
On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used to
make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24x7 5+ 9s uptime environments.
Where ZFS doesn't have an fsck command -
On 10/18/11 11:46 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote:
On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used to
make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24x7 5+ 9s uptime environments.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Mark Sandrock mark.sandr...@oracle.comwrote:
On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote:
I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used
to
make ZFS 'not ready for
On 10/19/11 03:12 AM, Paul Kraus wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Darren J Moffat
darr...@opensolaris.org wrote:
On 10/18/11 14:04, Jim Klimov wrote:
2011-10-18 16:26, Darren J Moffat пишет:
ZFS does slightly biases new vdevs for new writes so that we will get
to a more even spread.
On 10/19/11 01:18 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I recently put my first btrfs system into production. Here are the
similarities/differences I noticed different between btrfs and zfs:
Differences:
* Obviously, one is meant for linux and the other solaris (etc)
* In btrfs, there is only raid1.
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:05:29 -0500, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
Doesn't a scrub do more than what
'fsck' does?
Not really. fsck will work on an offline filesystem to correct errors and
bring it back online. Scrub won't even work until the filesystem is already
imported and online. If
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Kees Nuyt k.n...@zonnet.nl wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:05:29 -0500, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
Doesn't a scrub do more than what
'fsck' does?
Not really. fsck will work on an offline filesystem to correct errors
and
bring it back online. Scrub
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
Every scrub I've ever done that has found an error required manual fixing.
Every pool I've ever created has been raid-z or raid-z2, so the silent
healing, while a great story, has never actually happened in practice in any
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble peter.trib...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
Every scrub I've ever done that has found an error required manual
fixing.
Every pool I've ever created has been raid-z or raid-z2, so the silent
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble peter.trib...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
Every scrub I've ever done that has found an error required manual
fixing.
Every
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Peter Tribble peter.trib...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble peter.trib...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatically fixed it.
You're the first person I've heard that has had it automatically fix it.
I have had ZFS automatically repair corrupted raw data when one
component of the
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatically fixed it.
You're the first person I've heard that has had it automatically fix it.
Well, here comes another person - I have ZFS automatically fixing
corrupted data on
On 10/19/11 09:31 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatically fixed
it. You're the first person I've heard that has had it automatically
fix it.
I'm another, I have had many cases of ZFS fixing corrupted data on a
number of different pool
On 2011-Oct-18 23:18:02 +1100, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
I recently put my first btrfs system into production. Here are the
similarities/differences I noticed different between btrfs and zfs:
Thanks for that.
* zfs has storage tiering. (cache
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Doesn't a scrub do more than what 'fsck' does?
It does different things. I'm not sure about more.
Zfs scrub validates user data while 'fsck' does not. I consider that
as being definitely more.
Bob
--
Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us,
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Gregory Shaw greg.s...@oracle.com wrote:
I came to the conclusion that btrfs isn't ready for prime time. I'll
re-evaluate as development continues and the missing portions are provided.
For someone with @oracle.com email address, you could probably arrive
to
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
I recently put my first btrfs system into production. Here are the
similarities/differences I noticed different between btrfs and zfs:
Differences:
* Obviously, one is meant for linux
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus
I have done a poor man's rebalance by copying data after adding
devices. I know this is not a substitute for a real online rebalance,
but it gets the job done (if you can take the
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook
I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatically fixed
it. You're the first person I've heard that has had it automatically fix
it.
That's probably just because it's
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Peter Jeremy wrote:
Doesn't a scrub do more than what 'fsck' does?
It does different things. I'm not sure about more.
Zfs scrub validates user
From: Fajar A. Nugraha [mailto:w...@fajar.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:46 PM
* In btrfs, there is no equivalent or alternative to zfs send | zfs
receive
Planned. No actual working implementation yet.
In fact, I saw, actual work started on this task about a month ago. So it's
On Oct 18, 2011, at 20:26, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Yes, but when scrub encounters uncorrectable errors, it doesn't attempt to
correct them. Fsck will do things like recover lost files into the
lost+found directory, and stuff like that...
You say recover lost files like you know that they're
On Oct 18, 2011, at 20:35, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
In fact, I saw, actual work started on this task about a month ago. So it's
not just planned, it's really in the works. Now we're talking open source
timelines here, which means, you'll get it when it's ready, and nobody
knows when that
On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:35, Brian Wilson wrote:
Where ZFS doesn't have an fsck command - and that really used to bug me - it
does now have a -F option on zpool import. To me it's the same functionality
for my environment - the ability to try to roll back to a 'hopefully' good
state and get
This subject may have been ridden to death... I missed it if so.
Not wanting to start a flame fest or whatever but
As a common slob who isn't very skilled, I like to see some commentary
from some of the pros here as to any comparison of zfs against btrfs.
I realize btrfs is a lot less
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
This subject may have been ridden to death... I missed it if so.
Not wanting to start a flame fest or whatever but
As a common slob who isn't very skilled, I like to see some commentary
from some of the pros here as
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Harry Putnam rea...@newsguy.com wrote:
My main reasons for using zfs are pretty basic compared to some here
What are they ? (the reasons for using ZFS)
and I wondered how btrfs stacks up on the basic qualities.
I use ZFS @ work because it is the only FS we
Or, if you absolutely must run linux for the operating system, see:
http://zfsonlinux.org/
On Oct 17, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Freddie Cash wrote:
If you absolutely must run Linux on your storage server, for whatever reason,
then you probably won't be running ZFS. For the next year or two, it
Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com writes:
If you only want RAID0 or RAID1, then btrfs is okay. There's no support for
RAID5+ as yet, and it's been in development for a couple of years now.
[...] snipped excellent information
Thanks much, I've very appreciative of the good information. Much
62 matches
Mail list logo
