Hi All,
Is it not poosible to increase zfs record size beyond 128k.I am using
Solaris 10 Update 4.
I get following error when I try to set zfs record size to 1024 k.
zfs set recordsize=1024k md9/test
cannot set property for 'md9/test': 'recordsize' must be power of 2 from
512 to 128k
Thanks
Ma
Why do you want greater than 128K records.
Do Check out :
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/128k_suffice
-r
Manoj Nayak writes:
> Hi All,
>
> Is it not poosible to increase zfs record size beyond 128k.I am using
> Solaris 10 Update 4.
>
> I get following error when I try to set
Hello Thomas,
Friday, January 18, 2008, 10:31:17 AM, you wrote:
TMK> Hi,
TMK> I'd like to move a disk from one controller to another. This disk is
TMK> part of a mirror in a zfs pool. How can one do this without having to
TMK> export/import the pool or reboot the system?
TMK> I tried taking i
Hello Victor,
Friday, January 18, 2008, 11:35:27 AM, you wrote:
>> I tried taking it offline and online again, but then zpool says the disk
>> is unavailable. Trying a zpool replace didn't work because it complains
>> that the "new" disk is part of a zfs pool...
VE> So you offlined the disk and
Manoj Nayak writes:
> Roch - PAE wrote:
> > Why do you want greater than 128K records.
> >
> A single-parity RAID-Z pool on thumper is created & it consists of four
> disk.Solaris 10 update 4 runs on thumper.Then zfs filesystem is created in
> the pool.1 mb data is written to a file i
> I tried taking it offline and online again, but then zpool says the disk
> is unavailable. Trying a zpool replace didn't work because it complains
> that the "new" disk is part of a zfs pool...
So it would look like a new disk to ZFS and not like a disk belonging
to a zpool.
Vic
___
Roch - PAE wrote:
> Why do you want greater than 128K records.
>
A single-parity RAID-Z pool on thumper is created & it consists of four
disk.Solaris 10 update 4 runs on thumper.Then zfs filesystem is created in
the pool.1 mb data is written to a file in filesystem using write (2)
system c
Robert Milkowski schrieb:
> Hello Thomas,
>
> Friday, January 18, 2008, 10:31:17 AM, you wrote:
>
> TMK> Hi,
>
> TMK> I'd like to move a disk from one controller to another. This disk is
> TMK> part of a mirror in a zfs pool. How can one do this without having to
> TMK> export/import the pool
Hi,
I'd like to move a disk from one controller to another. This disk is
part of a mirror in a zfs pool. How can one do this without having to
export/import the pool or reboot the system?
I tried taking it offline and online again, but then zpool says the disk
is unavailable. Trying a zpool re
> I tried taking it offline and online again, but then zpool says the disk
> is unavailable. Trying a zpool replace didn't work because it complains
> that the "new" disk is part of a zfs pool...
So you offlined the disk and moved it to the new controller and then
tried to add it back to the pool?
On 1/17/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Pardon my ignorance, but is ZFS with compression safe to use in a
> > production environment?
>
> Yes, why wouldn't it be ? If it wasn't safe it wouldn't have been
> delivered.
Few reasons -
http://prefetch.net/blog/index.php/2007/11/28/
Sengor wrote:
> On 1/17/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Pardon my ignorance, but is ZFS with compression safe to use in a
>>> production environment?
>> Yes, why wouldn't it be ? If it wasn't safe it wouldn't have been
>> delivered.
>
> Few reasons -
> http://prefetch.net/blog
On 1/18/08, Sengor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see many enterprises adopting ZFS even though it's been
> officially out for a while now. Looking over the mailing list and
> numbers of ZFS patches, it's enough to scare lots of people away.
I suspect that the amount of changes / di
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi richard,
> using kstat -m zfs as you recommended produces some
> interesting results in the L2 catagory
>
> I can see the l2_size field increase immediately
> after doing a:
> zpool add pool cache cache_device
> and the l2_hits value increase with each test
> run as t
Paul Kraus wrote:
> On 1/18/08, Sengor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Don't get me wrong, I believe ZFS is a great product to have come out
>> of Sun's software group, however I don't think it's matured enough to
>> be relied upon with mission crititcal systems. ZFS is changing too
>> fast to
Hello Thomas,
Friday, January 18, 2008, 11:29:11 AM, you wrote:
TMK> Robert Milkowski schrieb:
>> Hello Thomas,
>>
>> Friday, January 18, 2008, 10:31:17 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> TMK> Hi,
>>
>> TMK> I'd like to move a disk from one controller to another. This disk is
>> TMK> part of a mirror in a
Thanks for the note Anton. I let memtest86 run overnight and it found
no issues. I've also now moved the cards around and have confirmed that
slot #3 on the mobo is bad (all my aoc-sat2-mv8 cards, cables, and
backplanes are OK).
However, I think its more than just slot #3 that has a fault b
On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:23 AM, Sengor wrote:
> On 1/17/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Pardon my ignorance, but is ZFS with compression safe to use in a
>>> production environment?
>>
>> Yes, why wouldn't it be ? If it wasn't safe it wouldn't have been
>> delivered.
>
> Few reas
Hi!
We're running Solaris10u4 here on a Sun Fire 2200 (x86/Opteron) with 8 GB RAM,
and after a long time of problems I'm about to give up our zfs installation (on
a simple scsi hardware raid) because of massive problems with (low memory?)
deadlocks - even a simple 'zfs list' sometimes locks the
Anyone out there using sharenfs=on with a large amount
of filesystems? We have over 1 filesystems all in one
pool. Everything is great until we turn on sharenfs
(zfs set sharenfs=on poolName). Once that is enabled,
zfs create poolName/filesystem takes about 5 minutes to
complete. If nfs shari
Many enterprise customers have told us that they are waiting for
two features, not yet available in ZFS, before they will adopt
it widely in their datacenter environments:
- The ability to boot off of a ZFS partition. I don't actually
understand this one, since you can't boot Solaris from a Vx
On 1/19/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On what do you base that statement ?
>
> How do you "see" what enterprises are adopting ?
>
> State your sources please.
Out of the many I work on only one's been keen on adopting it any time
soon, another one's planning to look into it but
I seem to remember hostid being added to the zpool to solve a bug for the poor
man's storage cluster.
Trying doing a zdb -v ( you should see 4 copies and note if hostid is a field
and if it differs from the current one)
you can also try a zpool import -f -a
I've seen cases where zfs mount -v
On 1/18/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simply FUD.
I don't see many enterprises adopting ZFS even though it's been
officially out for a while now. Looking over the mailing list and
numbers of ZFS patches, it's enough to scare lots of people away.
Don't get me wrong, I believe ZF
Roch - PAE wrote:
> Manoj Nayak writes:
> > Roch - PAE wrote:
> > > Why do you want greater than 128K records.
> > >
> > A single-parity RAID-Z pool on thumper is created & it consists of four
> > disk.Solaris 10 update 4 runs on thumper.Then zfs filesystem is created in
> > the pool.1
Sengor wrote:
> On 1/18/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Simply FUD.
>
> I don't see many enterprises adopting ZFS even though it's been
> officially out for a while now.
On what do you base that statement ?
How do you "see" what enterprises are adopting ?
State your sources pl
Hello Victor,
Friday, January 18, 2008, 11:53:23 AM, you wrote:
>> I tried taking it offline and online again, but then zpool says the disk
>> is unavailable. Trying a zpool replace didn't work because it complains
>> that the "new" disk is part of a zfs pool...
VE> So it would look like a new d
On 1/19/08, Paul Kraus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect that the amount of changes / discussion is no less
> for ZFS than for any new filesystem, just that due to the open source
> nature of it the discussions are in public view. The fact that the
> issues *are* being discussed is a h
On 1/19/08, Fred Zlotnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, of course, many other enterprise customers _have_ adopted
> ZFS, and are quite happy with it. For a list of ZFS reference
> customers please contact Solaris Marketing. ZFS is used in many
> mission critical roles today, and by and large
To my astonishment, the problem has turned out to be a bad power supply after
all. I didn't believe it until some of the SCSI drives in the same box started
acting up also.
Score: ZFS: 1, $180 OCZ PowerStream 600: 0 :)
I would still argue that a salvager would be a useful addition to ZFS for
30 matches
Mail list logo
