Thanks for the feedback Richard.
Does that mean that the L2ARC can be part of ANY pool and that there is only
ONE L2ARC for all pools active on the machine ?
Thesis:
- There is one L2ARC on the machine for all pools
- all Pools active share the same L2ARC
- the L2ARC can be part of any
Is there a way (besides format and causing heavy I/O on the device in question)
how to identify a drive. Is there some kind of SES (enclosure service) for this
??
(e.g. and now let the red led blink)
Regards,
Robert
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
Can I send a zfs send stream (ZFS pool version 22 ; ZFS filesystem
version 4) to a zfs receive stream on Solaris 10 (ZFS pool version 15 ;
ZFS filesystem version 4)?
--
Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D
+ http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS 10u7 5/09 | OpenSolaris 2010.03 b131
+ All that's really
dick hoogendijk wrote:
Can I send a zfs send stream (ZFS pool version 22 ; ZFS filesystem
version 4) to a zfs receive stream on Solaris 10 (ZFS pool version 15 ;
ZFS filesystem version 4)?
No.
You cannot import a stream into a zpool of earlier revision, thought the
reverse is possible.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 08:36, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@sun.com wrote:
These days, I've switched to 2.5 SATA laptop drives for large-storage
requirements.
They're going to cost more $/GB than 3.5 drives, but they're still not
horrible ($100 for a 500GB/7200rpm Seagate Momentus). They're
Thanks for the feedback and hardware recommendation gea.
Thus driver support is there out-of-the-box at least in snv_124+.
-dusan
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
iostat -En
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Thank you for the effort Simon.
Good to know from the feedback in your thread that the mpt_sas(7d) driver is
actually responsible for the SuperMicro AOC-USAS2-L8e support.
As far as the support for the other RAID capable lsi-2008 variants in the
mr_sas(7d) driver goes, it is but of little
Are there any plans to have a tool to restore individual files from zfs send
streams - like ufsrestore?
Specially for recovering from unintended file removal/changes of OS related
files it would be nice to be able to restore just the file in question, instead
of restoring the entire
Hi,
the only thing that might help is an export/import, so zfs is forced to re-scan
the pool for operative devices. If that doesn't help
If you suspect the server itself to be the problem, try to attach the drives to
a different box and import the pool there. Just make sure, that the
I'm in the process of building semi-beefy file/general-purpose-server(Lynnfield
Xeon, 4GB Ecc) and hard drive choice is the problem. I've been googling for a
day and a half now and the main points seem to be:
- ~all consumer class drives have the same problem with TLER/ERC/CCTL
- ~all for raid
Hi,
I recently upgraded from 2009.06 to b131 (mainly to get dedup
support). The upgrade to b131 went fairly smoothly, but then I ran
into an issue trying to get the old datasets snapshotted and
send/recv'd to dedup the existing data. Here's the steps I ran:
zfs snapshot -r
a 1U or 2U JBOD chassis for 2.5 drives,
from http://supermicro.com/products/nfo/chassis_storage.cfm
the E1 (single) or E2 (dual) options have a SAS expander so
http://supermicro.com/products/chassis/2U/?chs=216
fits your build or build it your self with
On Jan 24, 2010, at 07:18, Alexander Welter wrote:
Are there any plans to have a tool to restore individual files from
zfs send streams - like ufsrestore?
No publicly stated plans by Sun. If you have a support contract with
Sun, I'd recommend calling them up and telling them that you wish
I was looking at the performance of using rsync to copy some large files
which change only a little between each run (database files). I take a
snapshot after every successful run of rsync, so when using rsync
--inplace, only changed portions of the file will occupy new disk space.
Let me start this off with a personal philosophy statement. In technical
matters, there is almost never a “best”. There only the best compromise given
the objective you’re trying to achieve.
If you change the objectives even slightly, you may get wildly different “best
compromise” answers.
Tim Cook t...@cook.ms writes:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Frank Cusack fcus...@fcusack.com wrote:
I mean, just do a triple mirror of the 1.5TB drives rather than
say (6) .5TB drives in a raidz3.
I bet you'll get the same performance out of 3x1.5TB drives you get
out of 6x500GB
On January 23, 2010 8:23:08 PM -0600 Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
I bet you'll get the same performance out of 3x1.5TB drives you get out of
6x500GB drives too.
Yup. And if that's the case, probably you want to go with the 3 drives
because your operating costs (power consumption) will be
On January 24, 2010 11:45:57 AM +1100 Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 06:39:25PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
Smaller devices cost more $/GB; ie they are more expensive.
Usually, other than the very largest (most recent) drives, that are
still at a premium price.
Rob Logan wrote:
a 1U or 2U JBOD chassis for 2.5 drives,
from http://supermicro.com/products/nfo/chassis_storage.cfm
the E1 (single) or E2 (dual) options have a SAS expander so
http://supermicro.com/products/chassis/2U/?chs=216
fits your build or build it your self with
On January 24, 2010 8:41:00 AM -0800 Erik Trimble erik.trim...@sun.com
wrote:
an external JBOD chassis, not a server chassis.
http://h18006.www1.hp.com/storage/disk_storage/msa_diskarrays/drive_enclosures/index.html
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On January 24, 2010 8:26:07 AM -0800 R.G. Keen k...@geofex.com wrote:
In my case, I got 0.75TB drives
for $58 each. The cost per bit is bigger than buying 1TB or 1.5TB drives,
all right, but I can buy more of them, and that lets me put another drive
on for the next level of error correction
On January 24, 2010 8:26:07 AM -0800 R.G. Keen k...@geofex.com wrote:
“Fewer/bigger versus more/smaller drives”: Tim and Frank have worked
this one over. I made the choice based on wanting to get a raidz3 setup,
for which more disks are needed than raidz or raidz2. This idea comes out
of the
On Jan 24, 2010, at 10:26, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
But it occured to me that this is a special case which could be
beneficial in many cases -- if the filesystem uses secure checksums,
it
could check the existing block pointer and see if the replaced data
matches. [...]
Are there any
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Frank Cusack fcus...@fcusack.com wrote:
On January 23, 2010 8:23:08 PM -0600 Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
I bet you'll get the same performance out of 3x1.5TB drives you get out of
6x500GB drives too.
Yup. And if that's the case, probably you want to go
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:41, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@sun.com wrote:
Rob Logan wrote:
a 1U or 2U JBOD chassis for 2.5 drives,
from http://supermicro.com/products/nfo/chassis_storage.cfm the E1
(single) or E2 (dual) options have a SAS expander so
On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:26 AM, R.G. Keen wrote:
“Disk drives cost $100”: yes, I fully agree, with minor exceptions. End of
marketing, which is where the cost per drive drops significantly, is
different from end of life – I hope!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-of-life_(product)
Some vendors
On 24-Jan-10, at 11:26 AM, R.G. Keen wrote:
...
I’ll just blather a bit. The most durable data backup medium humans
have come up with was invented about 4000-6000 years ago. It’s
fired cuniform tablets as used in the Middle East. Perhaps one
could include stone carvings of Egyptian
On 01/24/10 04:10 AM, Lutz Schumann wrote:
Is there a way (besides format and causing heavy I/O on the device in question)
how to identify a drive. Is there some kind of SES (enclosure service) for this
??
(e.g. and now let the red led blink)
Try /usr/bin/iostat -En
Colin Raven co...@clearcutnetworks.com wrote:
A better digital archival medium may already exist:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/11/13/019202/Synthetic-Stone-
DVD-Claimed-To-Last-1000-Years
That would be nice - but - I have to wonder how they would test it in order
to justify the
On January 24, 2010 Frank Cusack wrote:
That's the point I was arguing against.
Yes, that's correct.
You did not respond to my argument, and you don't have to now,
Thanks for the permission. I'll need that someday.
but as long as you keep stating this without correcting me I will keep
Hello,
I'm testing with snv_131 (nexentacore 3 alpha 4). I did a bonnie benchmark to
my disks and pulled a disk whil benchmarking. Everything went smoothly,however
I found that the now degrated device is excluded from the writes.
So this is my pool after I have pulled the disk
pool:
Thank you for the effort Simon.
Thank you too Dusan, for creating this post that made me aware of this new card
-- it looks like a good one, and doesn't have the unnecessary RAID stuff
included :)
Good to know from the feedback in your thread that the mpt_sas(7d) driver is
actually
David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca writes:
On Jan 24, 2010, at 10:26, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
But it occured to me that this is a special case which could be
beneficial in many cases -- if the filesystem uses secure checksums,
it could check the existing block pointer and see if the
Are there any plans to have a tool to restore individual files from zfs
send streams - like ufsrestore?
The best advice I've heard so far is thus:
On your backup media, create a zpool in a file container. When you zfs
send don't save the data stream. Instead, feed it directly into zfs
Another issue with all this arithmetic: one needs to factor in the
cost of additional spare disks (what were you going to resilver onto?).
I look at it like this: you purchase the same number of total disks
(active + hot spare + cold spare), and raidz2 vs raidz3 simply moves a
disk from one of
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 03:55:59PM +0100, Matthias Appel wrote:
I have a serious issue with my zpool.
Yes. You need to figure out what the root cause of the issue is.
My zpool consists of 4 vdevs which are assembled to 2 mirrors.
One of this mirrors got degraded cause of too many errors on
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010, Frank Middleton wrote:
You seem to have it in for Seagate :-). Newegg by default displays reviews
worst to best. The review statistics as of 23 Jan 2010) were:
ST31500341AS (older, 7200RPM 1.5GB drive)
Excellent 911 - 49%
Good233 - 12%
Average 113 - 6%
Poor 123
On Jan 24, 2010, at 8:26 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
What an entertaining discussion! Hope the following adds to the
entertainment value :).
Any comments on this Dec. 2005 study on disk failure and error rates?
http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=64599
Seagate says
39 matches
Mail list logo
