On 06/16/2011 09:09 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
We had a similar discussion a couple of years ago here, under the
title A Versioning FS. Look through the archives for the full
discussion.
The jist is that application-level versioning (and consistency) is
completely orthogonal to filesystem-level
On 6/16/2011 12:09 AM, Simon Walter wrote:
On 06/16/2011 09:09 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
We had a similar discussion a couple of years ago here, under the
title A Versioning FS. Look through the archives for the full
discussion.
The jist is that application-level versioning (and consistency)
Thanks guys.
I have decided to bite the bullet and change to 2TB disks now rather than go
through all the effort using 1TB disks and then maybe changing in 6-12 months
time or whatever. The price difference between 1TB and 2TB disks is marginal
and I can always re-sell my 6x 1TB disks.
I
This message is from the disk saying that it aborted a command. These
are
usually preceded by a reset, as shown here. What caused the reset
condition?
Was it actually target 11 or did target 11 get caught up in the reset
storm?
It happed in the mid-night and nobody touched the file box.
I
Fixing a typo in my last thread...
-Original Message-
From: Fred Liu
Sent: 星期四, 六月 16, 2011 17:22
To: 'Richard Elling'
Cc: Jim Klimov; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: RE: [zfs-discuss] zfs global hot spares?
This message is from the disk saying that it aborted a command.
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Lanky Doodle
can you have one vdev that is a duplicate of another
vdev? By that I mean say you had 2x 7 disk raid-z2 vdevs, instead of them
both being used in one large pool could you have
On 16/06/11 3:09 AM, Simon Walter wrote:
On 06/16/2011 09:09 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
We had a similar discussion a couple of years ago here, under the
title A Versioning FS. Look through the archives for the full
discussion.
The jist is that application-level versioning (and consistency) is
Has there been any change to the server hardware with respect to number of
drives since ZFS has come out? Many of the servers around still have an even
number of drives (2, 4) etc. and it seems far from optimal from a ZFS
standpoint. All you can do is make one or two mirrors, or a 3 way mirror and
As recently discussed on this list, after all ZFS does not care
very much for the number of drives in a raidzN set, so optimization
is not about stripe alignment and stuff but about number of spindles,
resilver times, number of redundancy disks, etc.
In my setups with 4 identical drives in a
Op 15-06-11 05:56, Richard Elling schreef:
You can even have applications like databases make snapshots when
they want.
Makes me think of a backup utility called mylvmbackup, which is written
with Linux in mind - basically it locks mysql tables, takes an LVM
snapshot and releases the lock (and
Op 15-06-11 14:30, Simon Walter schreef:
Anyone know how Google Docs does it?
Anyone from Google on the list? :-)
Seriously, this is the kind of feature to be found in Serious CMS
applications, like, as already mentioned, Alfresco.
--
No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read
Op 15-06-11 05:56, Richard Elling schreef:
You can even have applications like databases make snapshots when
they want.
Makes me think of a backup utility called mylvmbackup, which is written
with Linux in mind - basically it locks mysql tables, takes an LVM
snapshot and releases the lock (and
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Has there been any change to the server hardware with respect to number of
drives since ZFS has come out? Many of the servers around still have an even
number of drives (2, 4) etc. and it seems far from optimal from a ZFS
standpoint. All you can do is
Has there been any change to the server hardware with
respect to number of
drives since ZFS has come out? Many of the servers
around still have an even
number of drives (2, 4) etc. and it seems far from
optimal from a ZFS
standpoint. All you can do is make one or two
mirrors, or a 3 way
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Nomen Nescio nob...@dizum.com wrote:
Has there been any change to the server hardware with respect to number of
drives since ZFS has come out? Many of the servers around still have an even
number of drives (2, 4) etc. and it seems far from optimal from a ZFS
I have decided to bite the bullet and change to 2TB disks now rather
than go through all the effort using 1TB disks and then maybe changing
in 6-12 months time or whatever. The price difference between 1TB and
2TB disks is marginal and I can always re-sell my 6x 1TB disks.
I think I have
On Jun 16, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Lanky Doodle wrote:
Thanks guys.
I have decided to bite the bullet and change to 2TB disks now rather than go
through all the effort using 1TB disks and then maybe changing in 6-12 months
time or whatever. The price difference between 1TB and 2TB disks is
--- erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
| So, if your apps have to be programmed to be
| versioning/consistency/checkmarking aware in any case, how
| would having a fancy Versioning filesystem be any better
| than using what we do now?
| (i.e. svn/hg/cvs/git on top of ZFS/btrfs/et al)
| ZFS at
Problem:
I currently run a duel boot machine with a 45Gb partition for Win7 Ultimate and
a 25Gb partition for OpenSolaris 10 (134). I need to shrink NTFS to 20Gb and
increase the ZFS partion to 45Gb. Is this possible please? I have looked at
using the partition tool in OpenSolaris but both
Hi Clive,
What you are asking is not recommended nor supported and could render
your ZFS root pool unbootable. (I'm not saying that some expert
couldn't do it, but its risky, like data corruption risky.)
ZFS expects the partition boundaries to remain the same unless you
replace the original
As Casper pointed out, the right thing to do is to build applications
such that they can detect mid-transaction state and roll it back (or
forward, if there's enough data). Then mid-transaction snapshots are
fine, and the lack of APIs by which to inform the filesystem of
application transaction
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:51 AM, casper@oracle.com wrote:
If a database engine or another application keeps both the data and the
log in the same filesystem, a snapshot wouldn't create inconsistent data
(I think this would be true with vim and a large number of database
engines; vim will
That said, losing committed transactions when you needed and thought
you had ACID semantics... is bad. But that's implied in any
restore-from-backups situation. So you replicate/distribute
transactions so that restore from backups (or snapshots) is an
absolutely last resort matter, and if you
On Jun 16, 2011, at 12:09 AM, Simon Walter wrote:
On 06/16/2011 09:09 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
We had a similar discussion a couple of years ago here, under the title A
Versioning FS. Look through the archives for the full discussion.
The jist is that application-level versioning (and
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
You can run OpenVMS :-)
Since *you* brought it up (I was not going to :-), how does VMS'
versioning FS handle those issues ?
I know that SAM-FS has rules for _when_ copies of a file are made, so
that intermediate
The OpenVMS filesystem is what you are looking for.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Simon Walter si...@gikaku.com wrote:
On 06/16/2011 09:09 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
We had a similar discussion a couple of years ago here, under the title A
Versioning FS. Look through the archives for the
Hi roy, Hi Dan,
many thanks for Your responses.
I am using napp-it to control the OpenSolaris-Systems
The napp-it-interface shows a dedup factor of 1.18x on System 1 and 1.16x on
System 2.
Dedup is on always (not only at the start), also compression is activated:
System 1 = compression on
On 06/16/11 15:36, Sven C. Merckens wrote:
But is the L2ARC also important while writing to the device? Because
the storeges are used most of the time only for writing data on it,
the Read-Cache (as I thought) isn´t a performance-factor... Please
correct me, if my thoughts are wrong.
if
On 6/16/2011 1:32 PM, Paul Kraus wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
You can run OpenVMS :-)
Since *you* brought it up (I was not going to :-), how does VMS'
versioning FS handle those issues ?
It doesn't, per se. VMS's filesystem has a
In message 444915109.61308252125289.JavaMail.Twebapp@sf-app1, Clive Meredith
writes:
I currently run a duel boot machine with a 45Gb partition for Win7 Ultimate an
d a 25Gb partition for OpenSolaris 10 (134). I need to shrink NTFS to 20Gb an
d increase the ZFS partion to 45Gb. Is this possible
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:06:48PM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
I have decided to bite the bullet and change to 2TB disks now rather
than go through all the effort using 1TB disks and then maybe changing
in 6-12 months time or whatever. The price difference between 1TB and
2TB disks
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nomen Nescio
Has there been any change to the server hardware with respect to number
of
drives since ZFS has come out? Many of the servers around still have an
even
number of drives (2, 4)
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:15:44PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
My personal preference, assuming 4 disks, since the OS is mostly reads and
only a little bit of writes, is to create a 4-way mirrored 100G partition
for the OS, and the remaining 900G of each disk (or whatever) becomes either
a
From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:27 PM
Is it still the case, as it once was, that allocating anything other
than whole disks as vdevs forces NCQ / write cache off on the drive
(either or both, forget which, guess write cache)?
I will only
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:40:25PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:27 PM
Is it still the case, as it once was, that allocating anything other
than whole disks as vdevs forces NCQ / write cache off on the
On 06/16/11 20:26, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:15:44PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
My personal preference, assuming 4 disks, since the OS is mostly reads and
only a little bit of writes, is to create a 4-way mirrored 100G partition
for the OS, and the remaining 900G
On 17.06.2011 01:44, John D Groenveld wrote:
In message444915109.61308252125289.JavaMail.Twebapp@sf-app1, Clive Meredith
writes:
I currently run a duel boot machine with a 45Gb partition for Win7 Ultimate an
d a 25Gb partition for OpenSolaris 10 (134). I need to shrink NTFS to 20Gb an
d
37 matches
Mail list logo
