Interesting thread - a few comments:
Finite-sized validation checksums aren't a 100% solution either, but they're
certainly good enough to be extremely useful.
NetApp has built a rather decent business at least in part by providing
less-than-100% user-level undo-style facilities via snapshots
a total of 4*64k = 256k to fetch a 2k block.
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6437054
perhaps a quick win would be to tell vdev_cache
about the DMU_OT_* type so it can read ahead appropriately.
it seems the largest losses are metadata. (du,find,scrub/resilver)
Pardon me if this scenario has been discussed already, but I haven't
seen anything as yet.
I'd like to request a 'zpool evacuate pool device' command.
'zpool evacuate' would migrate the data from a disk device to other
disks in the pool.
Here's the scenario:
Say I have a small server
On 11/06/06, Gregory Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pardon me if this scenario has been discussed already, but I haven't
seen anything as yet.
I'd like to request a 'zpool evacuate pool device' command.
'zpool evacuate' would migrate the data from a disk device to other
disks in the pool.
This only seems valuable in the case of an unreplicated pool. We
already have 'zpool offline' to take a device and prevent ZFS from
talking to it (because it's in the process of failing, perhaps). This
gives you what you want for mirrored and RAID-Z vdevs, since there's no
data to migrate
On Jun 11, 2006, at 03:21, can you guess? wrote:
My dim recollection is that TOPS-10 implemented its popular (but
again 100%) undelete mechanism using the same kind of 'space-
available' approach suggested here. It did, however, support
explicit 'delete - I really mean it' facilities to
I'm seeing odd behaviour when I create a ZFS raidz pool using three disks. The
output of zpool status shows the pool size as the size of the three disks
combined (as if it were a Raid 0 volume). This isn't expected behaviour is it?
When I create a mirrored volume in ZFS everything is as one
Yes, if zpool remove works like you describe, it does the same
thing. Is there a time frame for that feature?
Thanks!
On Jun 11, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Eric Schrock wrote:
This only seems valuable in the case of an unreplicated pool. We
already have 'zpool offline' to take a device and
