But presumably it would be possible to use additional columns for future
writes?
I guess that could be made to work, but then the data on the disk becomes
much (much much) more difficult to interpret because you have some rows which
are effectively one width and others which are another
I guess that could be made to work, but then the data on
the disk becomes much (much much) more difficult to
interpret because you have some rows which are effectively
one width and others which are another (ad infinitum).
How do rows come into it? I was just assuming that each
Maybe this is a dumb question, but I've never written a
filesystem is there a fundamental reason why you cannot have
some files mirrored, with others as raidz, and others with no
resilience? This would allow a pool to initially exist on one
disk, then gracefully change between different
How can I remove a device or a partition from a pool.
NOTE: The devices are not mirrored or raidz
Thanks
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On 13/07/06, Yacov Ben-Moshe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can I remove a device or a partition from a pool.
NOTE: The devices are not mirrored or raidz
Then you can't - there isn't a 'zfs remove' command yet.
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
Hi,
after switching over to zfs from ufs for my ~/ at home, I am a little bit
disturbed by the noise the disks are making. To be more precise, I always have
thunderbird and firefox running on my desktop and either or both seem to be
writing to my ~/ at short intervals and ZFS flushes these
If it was possible to implement raidz/raidz2 expansion it would be a big
feature in favor of ZFS. Most hardware RAID controllers have the ability to
expand a raid pool - some have to take the raid array offline, but the ones I
work with generally do it online, although you are forced to suffer
On 7/13/06, Darren Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When ZFS compression is enabled, although the man page doesn't
explicitly say this, my guess is that only new data that gets
written out is compressed - in keeping with the COW policy.
[ ... ]
Hmmm, well, I suppose the same problem might apply
David Abrahams wrote:
I've seen people wondering if ZFS was a scam because the claims just
seemed too good to be true. Given that ZFS *is* really great, I don't
think it would hurt to prominently advertise limitations like this one
it would probably benefit credibility considerably, and it's a
Luke Scharf [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As for the claims, I don't buy that it's impossible to corrupt a ZFS
volume. I've replicated the demo where the guy dd's /dev/urandom
over part of the disk, and I believe that works -- but there are a
lot of other ways to corrupt a filesystem in the real
I am seeing the same behavior on my SunBlade 2500 while running firefox. I
think my disks are
quieter than yours though, because I don't really notice the difference that
much.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Dick Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 13/07/06, Yacov Ben-Moshe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can I remove a device or a partition from a pool.
NOTE: The devices are not mirrored or raidz
Then you can't - there isn't a 'zfs remove' command yet.
Yeah, I ran into that in my testing, too.
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
It's easy to corrupt the volume, though -- just copy random data over
*two* disks of a RAIDZ volume. Okay, you have to either do the whole
volume, or get a little lucky to hit both copies of some piece of
information before you get corruption. Or pull two disks out of
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 09:44:18AM -0500, Al Hopper wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Adam Leventhal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure I even agree with the notion that this is a real
problem (and if it is, I don't think is easily solved). Stripe
widths are
Jeff Bonwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The main issues are administrative. ZFS is all about ease of use
(when it's not busy being all about data integrity), so getting the
interface to be simple and intuitive is important -- and not as
simple as it sounds. If your free disk space might be
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adam Leventhal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure I even agree with the notion that this is a real
problem (and if it is, I don't think is easily solved). Stripe
widths are a function of the expected failure rate and fault domains
of the
Infrant NAS box and using their X-RAID instead.
I've gone back to solaris from an Infrant box.
1) while the Infrant cpu is sparc, its way, way, slow.
a) the web IU takes 3-5 seconds per page
b) any local process, rsync, UPnP, SlimServer is cpu starved
2) like a netapp,
Jeff Bonwick said:
RAID-Z takes a different approach. We were designing a filesystem
as well, so we could make the block pointers as semantically rich
as we wanted. To that end, the block pointers in ZFS contains data
layout information. One nice side effect of this is that we don't
need
comfortable with having 2 parity drives for 12 disks,
the thread starting config of 4 disks per controller(?):
zpool create tank raidz2 c1t1d0 c1t2d0 c1t3d0 c1t4d0c2t1d0 c2t2d0
then later
zpool add tank raidz2 c2t3d0 c2t4d0 c3t1d0 c3t2d0 c3t3d0 c3t4d0
as described, doubles ones
David Abrahams wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adam Leventhal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure I even agree with the notion that this is a real
problem (and if it is, I don't think is easily solved). Stripe
widths are a function of the expected failure rate and
Who hoo! It looks like the resilver completed sometime over night. The
system appears to be running normally, (after one final reboot):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: zpool status
pool: storage
state: ONLINE
scrub: none requested
config:
NAME STATE
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:42 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
[in brainstorming mode, sans coffee so far this morning]
Better yet, buy two disks, say 500 GByte. Need more space, replace
them with 750 GByte, because by then the price of the 750 GByte disks
will be as low as the 250 GByte disks
Joseph Mocker schrieb:
Today I attempted to upgrade to S10_U2 and migrate some mirrored UFS SVM
partitions to ZFS.
I used Live Upgrade to migrate from U1 to U2 and that went without a
hitch on my SunBlade 2000. And the initial conversion of one side of the
UFS mirrors to a ZFS pool and
Dennis Clarke wrote:
whoa whoa ... just one bloody second .. whoa ..
That looks like a real nasty bug description there.
What are the details on that? Is this particular to a given system or
controller config or something liek that or are we talking global to Solaris
10 Update 2 everywhere
How could i monitor zfs ?
or the zpool activity ?
I want to know if anything wrong is going on.
If i could receive those warning by email, it would be great :)
Martin
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Of course when it's time to upgrade you can always
just call sun and get a Thumper on a Try before you
Buy - and use it as a temporary storage space for
your files while you re-do your raidz/raidz2 virtual
device from scratch with an additional disk. zfs
send/zfs recieve here I come.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There's no reason at all why you can't do this. The only thing preventing
most file systems from taking advantage of ?adjustable? replication is that
they don?t have the integrated volume management capabilities that ZFS does.
And in fact, Sun's own QFS can do this, on
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 11:42:21AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
Yes, and while it's not an immediate showstopper for me, I'll want to
know that expansion is coming imminently before I adopt RAID-Z.
[in brainstorming mode, sans coffee so far this morning]
Better yet, buy two disks, say 500
28 matches
Mail list logo
