Jeff Victor wrote:
Why? Is the 'data is encrypted' flag only stored in filesystem
metadata, or is that flag stored in each data block?
Like compression and which checksum algorithm it will be stored in
every dmu object.
If the latter is
true, it would be possible (though potentially
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 07:03, Darren J Moffat wrote:
The current plan is that encryption must be turned on when the file
system is created and can't be turned on later. This means that the
zfs-crypto work depends on the RFE to set properties at file system
creation
Hi,
so it happened...
I have a 10 disk raidz pool running Solaris 10 U2, and after a reboot the whole
pool became unavailable after apparently loosing a diskdrive. (The drive is
seemingly ok as far as I can tell from other commands)
--- bootlog ---
Jul 17 09:57:38 expprd fmd: [ID 441519
I have a 10 disk raidz pool running Solaris 10 U2, and after a reboot
the whole pool became unavailable after apparently loosing a diskdrive.
[...]
NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM
dataUNAVAIL 0 0 0 insufficient replicas
c1t0d0ONLINE
Hi All,
I've just built an 8 disk zfs storage box, and I'm in the testing phase before
I put it into production. I've run into some unusual results, and I was hoping
the community could offer some suggestions. I've bascially made the switch to
Solaris on the promises of ZFS alone (yes I'm that
This is change request:
6428639 large writes to zvol synchs too much, better cut down a little
which I have a fix for, but it hasn't been put back.
Neil.
Jürgen Keil wrote On 07/17/06 04:18,:
Further testing revealed
that it wasn't an iSCSI performance issue but a zvol
issue. Testing on a
Hello J.P.,
Monday, July 17, 2006, 2:15:56 PM, you wrote:
JPK Possibly not the right list, but the only appropriate one I knew about.
JPK I have a Solaris box (just reinstalled to Sol 10 606) with a 3.19TB device
JPK hanging off it, attatched by fibre.
JPK Solaris refuses to see this device
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Buth the
reason thing is how do you tell the admin "its done now the filesystem
is safe". With compression you don't generally care if some old stuff
didn't compress (and with the current implementation it has to compress
a certain amount or it gets written uncompressed
Well if in fact sd/ssd with EFI labels still have limit to 2TB than
create SMI label with one slice representing whole disk and then put
zfs on that slice. Eventually manually turn on write cache then.
How do you suggest that I create a slice representing the whole disk?
format (with or without
Well if in fact sd/ssd with EFI labels still have limit to 2TB than
create SMI label with one slice representing whole disk and then put
zfs on that slice. Eventually manually turn on write cache then.
Well, in fact it turned out that the firmware on the device needed
upgrading to support the
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jeff Bonwick wrote
zpool create data unreplicated A B C
The extra typing would be annoying, but would make it almost impossible
to get the wrong behavior by accident.
I think that is a very good idea from a usability view point. It is
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
Hi Julian,
Can you send me the documentation pointer that says 2 TB isn't supported
on the Solaris 10 6/06 release?
As per my original post:
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-5093/6mkisoq1k?a=view#disksconcepts-17
This doesn't say which
I too have seen this recently, due to a partially failed drive.
When I physically removed the drive, ZFS figured everything out and
I was back up and running. Alas, I have been unable to recreate.
There is a bug lurking here, if someone has a more clever way to
test, we might be able to nail it
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Roch wrote:
Sorry to plug my own blog but have you had a look at these ?
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/roch?entry=when_to_and_not_to (raidz)
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/roch?entry=the_dynamics_of_zfs
Also, my thinking is that raid-z is probably more
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:44:28AM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
PERMISSION GRANTING
zfs allow -c ability[,ability...] dataset
-c Create means that the permission will be granted (Locally) to the
creator on any newly-created descendant
Bart Smaalders wrote:
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 09:44:28AM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
PERMISSION GRANTING
zfs allow -c ability[,ability...] dataset
-c Create means that the permission will be granted (Locally) to the
creator on any
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:00:44AM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
So as administrator what do I need to do to set
/export/home up for users to be able to create their own
snapshots, create dependent filesystems (but still mounted
underneath their /export/home/usrname)?
In other words, is
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:00:44AM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
So as administrator what do I need to do to set
/export/home up for users to be able to create their own
snapshots, create dependent filesystems (but still mounted
underneath their /export/home/usrname)?
In
Or if you have the right patches ...
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/torrey?entry=really_big_luns
Cindy Swearingen wrote:
Hi Julian,
Can you send me the documentation pointer that says 2 TB isn't supported
on the Solaris 10 6/06 release?
The 2 TB limit was lifted in the Solaris 10 1/06
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:11:35AM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
I want root to create a new filesystem for a new user under
the /export/home filesystem, but then have that user get the
right privs via inheritance rather than requiring root to run
a set of zfs commands.
In that case, how
On 7/17/06, Mark Shellenbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following is the delegated admin model that Matt and I have been
working on. At this point we are ready for your feedback on the
proposed model.
-Mark
PERMISSION GRANTING
zfs allow [-l] [-d] everyone|user|group
On 7/17/06, Jonathan Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I've just built an 8 disk zfs storage box, and I'm in the testing phase before
I put it into production. I've run into some unusual results, and I was hoping
the community could offer some suggestions. I've bascially made the
Glenn Skinner wrote:
The following is a nit-level comment, so I've directed it onl;y to you,
rather than to the entire list.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:57:35 -0600
From: Mark Shellenbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [zfs-discuss] Proposal: delegated administration
The following is
James Dickens wrote:
On 7/17/06, Mark Shellenbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following is the delegated admin model that Matt and I have been
working on. At this point we are ready for your feedback on the
proposed model.
-Mark
PERMISSION GRANTING
zfs allow [-l] [-d]
To maximize the throughput, I'd go with 8 5-disk raid-z{2} luns. Using that configuration, a full-width stripe write should be a single operation for each controller.In production, the application needs would probably dictate the resulting disk layout. If the application doesn't need tons of
I take it you already have solved the problem.
Yes, my problems went away once my device supported the extended SCSI
instruction set.
Julian
--
Julian King
Computer Officer, University of Cambridge, Unix Support
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 04:00:38PM -0400, Dale Ghent wrote:
Add an option to zpool(1M) to dump the pool config as well as the
configuration of the volumes within it to an XML file. This file
could then be sucked in to zpool at a later date to recreate/
replicate the pool and its volume
Hi Everyone,
I thought I'd share some benchmarking and playing around that we had
done with making zpools from disks that were iscsi volumes. The
numbers are representative of 6 benchmarking rounds per.
The interesting finding at least for us was the filebench varmail
(50:50
I agree with Greg - For ZFS, I'd recommend a larger number of raidz
luns, with a smaller number
of disks per LUN, up to 6 disks per raidz lun.
This will more closely align with performance best practices, so it
would be cool to find
common ground in terms of a sweet-spot for performance and
Jeff -
That sounds like a great idea...
Another idea might to be have a zpool create announce the 'availability'
of any given configuration, and output the Single points of failure.
# zpool create mypool a b c
NOTICE: This pool has no redundancy.
Without hardware
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 10:10:33AM +1000, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
Jeff -
That sounds like a great idea...
Another idea might to be have a zpool create announce the 'availability'
of any given configuration, and output the Single points of failure.
# zpool create mypool a b c
[stirring the pot a little...]
Jim Mauro wrote:
I agree with Greg - For ZFS, I'd recommend a larger number of raidz
luns, with a smaller number
of disks per LUN, up to 6 disks per raidz lun.
For 6 disks, 3x2-way RAID-1+0 offers better resiliency than RAID-Z
or RAID-Z2. For 3-5 disks,
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 12:46:57AM -0700, Patrick Mauritz wrote:
Hi,
after some unscheduled reboots (to put it lightly), I've got an interesting
setup on my notebook's zfs partition:
setup: simple zpool, no raid or mirror, a couple of zfs partitions, one zvol
for swap. /foo is one such
33 matches
Mail list logo
