Re: [zfs-discuss] Thin device support in ZFS?

2010-01-01 Thread Eric D. Mudama
On Thu, Dec 31 at 16:53, David Magda wrote: Just as the first 4096-byte block disks are silently emulating 4096 - to-512 blocks, SSDs are currently re-mapping LBAs behind the scenes. Perhaps in the future there will be a setting to say no really, I'm talking about the /actual/ LBA 123456.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thin device support in ZFS?

2010-01-01 Thread Eric D. Mudama
On Thu, Dec 31 at 10:18, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: There are of course SSDs with hardly any (or no) reserve space, but while we might be willing to sacrifice an image or two to SSD block failure in our digital camera, that is just not acceptable for serious computer use. Some people are doing

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thin device support in ZFS?

2010-01-01 Thread Ragnar Sundblad
On 31 dec 2009, at 22.53, David Magda wrote: On Dec 31, 2009, at 13:44, Joerg Schilling wrote: ZFS is COW, but does the SSD know which block is in use and which is not? If the SSD did know whether a block is in use, it could erase unused blocks in advance. But what is an unused block on

[zfs-discuss] (snv_129, snv_130) can't import zfs pool

2010-01-01 Thread LevT
Hi (snv_130) created zfs pool storage (a mirror of two whole disks) zfs created storage/iscsivol, made some tests, wrote some GBs zfs created storage/mynas filesystem (sharesmb dedup=on compression=on) FILLED the storage/mynas tried to ZFS DESTROY my storage/iscsivol, but the system has

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thin device support in ZFS?

2010-01-01 Thread David Magda
On Jan 1, 2010, at 03:30, Eric D. Mudama wrote: On Thu, Dec 31 at 16:53, David Magda wrote: Just as the first 4096-byte block disks are silently emulating 4096 - to-512 blocks, SSDs are currently re-mapping LBAs behind the scenes. Perhaps in the future there will be a setting to say no

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thin device support in ZFS?

2010-01-01 Thread David Magda
On Jan 1, 2010, at 04:33, Ragnar Sundblad wrote: I see the possible win that you could always use all the working blocks on the disk, and when blocks goes bad your disk will shrink. I am not sure that is really what people expect, though. Apart from that, I am not sure what the gain would be.

[zfs-discuss] preview of new SSD based on SandForce controller

2010-01-01 Thread Al Hopper
Interesting article - rumor has it that this is the same controller that Seagate will use in its upcoming enterprise level SSDs: http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3702 It reads like SandForce has implemented a bunch of ZFS like functionality in firmware. Hmm, I wonder if they used

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thin device support in ZFS?

2010-01-01 Thread Ragnar Sundblad
On 1 jan 2010, at 14.14, David Magda wrote: On Jan 1, 2010, at 04:33, Ragnar Sundblad wrote: I see the possible win that you could always use all the working blocks on the disk, and when blocks goes bad your disk will shrink. I am not sure that is really what people expect, though. Apart

Re: [zfs-discuss] hard drive choice, TLER/ERC/CCTL

2010-01-01 Thread R.G. Keen
On Dec 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Richard Elling wrote: Some nits: disks aren't marked as semi-bad, but if ZFS has trouble with a block, it will try to not use the block again. So there is two levels of recovery at work: whole device and block. Ah. I hadn't found that yet. The one more and

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thin device support in ZFS?

2010-01-01 Thread David Magda
On Jan 1, 2010, at 11:04, Ragnar Sundblad wrote: But that would only move the hardware specific and dependent flash chip handling code into the file system code, wouldn't it? What is won with that? As long as the flash chips have larger pages than the file system blocks, someone will have to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thin device support in ZFS?

2010-01-01 Thread Richard Elling
On Dec 31, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Ragnar Sundblad wrote: Flash SSDs actually always remap new writes into a only-append-to-new-pages style, pretty much as ZFS does itself. So for a SSD there is no big difference between ZFS and filesystems as UFS, NTFS, HFS+ et al, on the flash level they all work

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thin device support in ZFS?

2010-01-01 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, David Magda wrote: It doesn't exist currently because of the behind-the-scenes re-mapping that's being done by the SSD's firmware. While arbitrary to some extent, and actual LBA would presumably the number of a particular cell in the SSD. There seems to be some severe

[zfs-discuss] ZFS not working in non-global zone after upgrading to snv_130

2010-01-01 Thread Bernd Schemmer
Hi After upgrading OpenSolaris from snv111 to snv130 r...@t61p:/export/home/xtrnaw7# cat /etc/release OpenSolaris Development snv_130 X86 Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms.

Re: [zfs-discuss] preview of new SSD based on SandForce controller

2010-01-01 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Al Hopper wrote: Interesting article - rumor has it that this is the same controller that Seagate will use in its upcoming enterprise level SSDs: http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3702 It reads like SandForce has implemented a bunch of ZFS like functionality in

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thin device support in ZFS?

2010-01-01 Thread Al Hopper
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, David Magda wrote: It doesn't exist currently because of the behind-the-scenes re-mapping that's being done by the SSD's firmware. While arbitrary to some extent, and actual LBA would

[zfs-discuss] trying to buy an Intel MLC SSD

2010-01-01 Thread Al Hopper
The 80Gb Intel MLC SSDs have been hard to find in-stock and prices keep varying The original list price on the x25m 80Gb MLC drive was $230 - and it was *supposed* to be available for less than that. Demand has been high and a lot of on-line sellers have taken advantage of the demand to keep

[zfs-discuss] Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 -- cfgadm won't create attach point (dsk/xxxx)

2010-01-01 Thread Jeb Campbell
I have a Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 running on snv_130. I have a 6 disk raidz2 pool that has been running great. Today I added a Western Digital Green 1.5TB WD15EADS so I could create some scratch space. But, cfgadm will not assign the drive a dsk/xxx ... I have tried unconfigure/configure and

Re: [zfs-discuss] preview of new SSD based on SandForce controller

2010-01-01 Thread Richard Elling
On Jan 1, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Al Hopper wrote: Interesting article - rumor has it that this is the same controller that Seagate will use in its upcoming enterprise level SSDs: http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3702 It reads like SandForce

Re: [zfs-discuss] (snv_129, snv_130) can't import zfs pool

2010-01-01 Thread Richard Elling
On Jan 1, 2010, at 4:57 AM, LevT wrote: Hi (snv_130) created zfs pool storage (a mirror of two whole disks) zfs created storage/iscsivol, made some tests, wrote some GBs zfs created storage/mynas filesystem (sharesmb dedup=on compression=on) FILLED the storage/mynas tried to ZFS DESTROY

Re: [zfs-discuss] hard drive choice, TLER/ERC/CCTL

2010-01-01 Thread Richard Elling
On Jan 1, 2010, at 8:11 AM, R.G. Keen wrote: On Dec 31, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Richard Elling wrote: Some nits: disks aren't marked as semi-bad, but if ZFS has trouble with a block, it will try to not use the block again. So there is two levels of recovery at work: whole device and block. Ah.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool unusable after attempting to destroy a dataset with dedup enabled

2010-01-01 Thread tom wagner
Yeah, still no joy. I moved the disks to another machine altogether with 8gb and a quad core intel versus the dual core amd I was using and it still just hangs the box on import. this time I did a nohup zpool import -fFX vault after booting off the b130 live dvd on this machine into single

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool unusable after attempting to destroy a dataset with dedup enabled

2010-01-01 Thread Richard Elling
On Jan 1, 2010, at 2:23 PM, tom wagner wrote: Yeah, still no joy. I moved the disks to another machine altogether with 8gb and a quad core intel versus the dual core amd I was using and it still just hangs the box on import. this time I did a nohup zpool import -fFX vault after booting

Re: [zfs-discuss] best way to configure raidz groups

2010-01-01 Thread Orvar Korvar
raidz2 is recommended. As discs get large, it can take long time to repair raidz. Maybe several days. With raidz1, if another discs blows during repair, you are screwed. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool unusable after attempting to destroy a dataset with dedup enabled

2010-01-01 Thread tom wagner
That's the thing, the drive lights aren't blinking, but I was thinking maybe the writes are going so slow that it's possible they aren't registering. And since I can't keep a running iostat, Ican't tell if anything is going on. I can however get into the KMDB. is there something in there that

Re: [zfs-discuss] (snv_129, snv_130) can't import zfs pool

2010-01-01 Thread tom wagner
You might want to checkout another thread that me and some of the others started on this topic. some of the guys in that thread got their pool back but I haven't been able to. I have SSDs for my log and cache and it hasn't helped me because my system hangs hard on import the way you are

Re: [zfs-discuss] preview of new SSD based on SandForce controller

2010-01-01 Thread Erik Trimble
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Al Hopper wrote: Interesting article - rumor has it that this is the same controller that Seagate will use in its upcoming enterprise level SSDs: http://anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3702 It reads like SandForce has implemented a bunch of

Re: [zfs-discuss] preview of new SSD based on SandForce controller

2010-01-01 Thread Richard Elling
On Jan 1, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Erik Trimble wrote: Maybe it's approaching time for vendors to just produce really stupid SSDs: that is, ones that just do wear-leveling, and expose their true page-size info (e.g. for MLC, how many blocks of X size

Re: [zfs-discuss] preview of new SSD based on SandForce controller

2010-01-01 Thread Erik Trimble
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Erik Trimble wrote: Maybe it's approaching time for vendors to just produce really stupid SSDs: that is, ones that just do wear-leveling, and expose their true page-size info (e.g. for MLC, how many blocks of X size have to be written at once) and