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 *identical* to offer
*comparable* value
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 Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:02:43PM -0800, Tim Cook wrote:
what firmware revision are you at?
Revision: 415G
Regards
przemol
--
http://przemol.blogspot.com/
--
A co by bylo, gdybys to TY rzadzil?
Kliknij
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 *identical* to offer
*comparable* value (i.e.,
Whoever coined that phrase must've been wrong, it should definitely be By
billtodd you've got it.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
For the same reason he won't respond to Jone, and can't answer the original
question. He's not trying to help this list out at all, or come up with any
real answers. He's just here to troll.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
As I explained, there are eminently acceptable
alternatives to ZFS from any objective standpoint.
So name these mystery alternatives that come anywhere close to the protection,
functionality, and ease of use that zfs provides. You keep talking about how
they exist, yet can't seem to come
Does anyone know if there are any issues mixing one 5+2 raidz2 in the same pool
with 6 5+1 raidz1 vdevs? Would there be any performance hit?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Dec 6, 2007 1:13 AM, Bakul Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that I don't wish to argue for/against zfs/billtodd but
the comment above about no *real* opensource software
alternative zfs automating checksumming and simple
snapshotting caught my eye.
There is an open source alternative
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/06/2007 09:58:00 AM:
On Dec 6, 2007 1:13 AM, Bakul Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that I don't wish to argue for/against zfs/billtodd but
the comment above about no *real* opensource software
alternative zfs automating checksumming and simple
apologies in advance for prolonging this thread ..
Why do you feel any need to? If you were contributing posts as completely
devoid of technical content as some of the morons here have recently been
submitting I could understand it, but my impression is that the purpose of this
forum is to
Hi,
# /usr/sbin/zpool import
pool: Radical-Vol
id: 3051993120652382125
state: FAULTED
status: One or more devices contains corrupted data.
action: The pool cannot be imported due to damaged devices or data.
see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-5E
config:
Radical-Vol
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 *identical* to
offer *comparable*
Anyone? Really need some help here
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
(Can we
declare this thread
dead already?)
Many have already tried, but it seems to have a great deal of staying power.
You, for example, have just contributed to its continued vitality.
Others seem to care.
*identical* to offer *comparable* value (i.e., they
each have
different
The 45 byte score is the checksum of the top of the tree, isn't that
right?
Yes. Plus an optional label.
ZFS snapshots and clones save a lot of space, but the
'content-hash == address' trick means you could potentially save
much more.
Especially if you carry around large files (disk
STILL haven't given us a list of these filesystems you say match what zfs does.
STILL coming back with long winded responses with no content whatsoever to try
to divert the topic at hand. And STILL making incorrect assumptions.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Following suggestions from Andre and Rich that this was
probably the ARC, I've implemented a 256Mb limit for my
system's ARC, per the Solaris Internals wiki:
* http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#ARCSIZE
* set arc max to 256Mb
set
Hi All,
We are currently a hardware issue with our zfs file server hence the file
system is unusable.
We are planning to move it to a different system.
The setup on the file server when it was running was
bash-3.00# zpool status
pool: store1
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
On Dec 5, 2007, at 8:38 PM, Anton B. Rang wrote:
This might have been affected by the cache flush issue -- if the
3310 flushes its NVRAM cache to disk on SYNCHRONIZE CACHE commands,
then ZFS is penalizing itself. I don't know whether the 3310
firmware has been updated to support the
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 *identical* to
offer *comparable* value
Artem Kachitchkine wrote:
James McPherson wrote:
Following suggestions from Andre and Rich that this was
probably the ARC, I've implemented a 256Mb limit for my
system's ARC, per the Solaris Internals wiki:
*
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Evil_Tuning_Guide#ARCSIZE
*
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 06:12:18PM -0600, Al Hopper wrote:
PS: LsiLogic just updated their SAS HBAs and have a couple of products
very reasonably priced IMHO. Combine that with a (single ?) Fujitsu
MAX3xxxRC (where xxx represents the size) and you'll be wearing a big
smile every time you
On 12/6/07, Brian Hechinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 06:12:18PM -0600, Al Hopper wrote:
PS: LsiLogic just updated their SAS HBAs and have a couple of products
very reasonably priced IMHO. Combine that with a (single ?) Fujitsu
MAX3xxxRC (where xxx represents the
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 06:12:18PM -0600, Al Hopper wrote:
I don't think you'll see any worthwhile improvement. For a ZIL
device, you really need something like a (small) SAS 15k RPM 3.5
drive - which will sustain 700 to 900 IOPS (my number - open to
argument) - or a RAM disk or one of
Hi folks,
I've updated zfs_ttinstall to work correctly (finally =P) and for
slightly better error handling.
This allows you to perform an in-place upgrade on a Solaris Express
system that is using ZFS root. Sorry, no Live Upgrade for now. You will
have to boot from DVD media for the upgrade (CDs
26 matches
Mail list logo
