[zfs-discuss] ZFS patches for FreeBSD.

2006-11-15 Thread Pawel Jakub Dawidek
Just to let you know that first set of patches for FreeBSD is now available: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2006-November/002385.html -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root

2006-11-15 Thread Lori Alt
Ceri Davies wrote: On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:32:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, we have considered this. On both SPARC and x86, there will be a way to specify the root file system (i.e., the bootable dataset) to be booted, at either the GRUB prompt (for x86) or the OBP prom

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root

2006-11-15 Thread Ceri Davies
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:32:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Actually, we have considered this. On both SPARC and x86, there will be > >a way to specify the root file system (i.e., the bootable dataset) to be > >booted, > >at either the GRUB prompt (for x86) or the OBP prompt (for SPA

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root

2006-11-15 Thread Ceri Davies
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 04:23:18PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 09:58:35PM +, Ceri Davies wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:10:30PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > >I think we first need to define what state "up" actually is. Is it the > > > >kerne

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root

2006-11-15 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 09:58:35PM +, Ceri Davies wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:10:30PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >I think we first need to define what state "up" actually is. Is it the > > >kernel booted ? Is it the root file system mounted ? Is it we reached > > >mil

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root

2006-11-15 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:00:01AM +, Darren J Moffat wrote: > I think we first need to define what state "up" actually is. Is it the > kernel booted ? Is it the root file system mounted ? Is it we reached > milestone all ? Is it we reached milestone all with no services in > maintenance

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root

2006-11-15 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:32:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Actually, we have considered this. On both SPARC and x86, there will be > >a way to specify the root file system (i.e., the bootable dataset) to be > >booted, > >at either the GRUB prompt (for x86) or the OBP prompt (for SPA

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root

2006-11-15 Thread Ceri Davies
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:10:30PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >I think we first need to define what state "up" actually is. Is it the > >kernel booted ? Is it the root file system mounted ? Is it we reached > >milestone all ? Is it we reached milestone all with no services in > >ma

[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Mirror Configuration??

2006-11-15 Thread oab
Hi Tomas, Thanks for that. Got to get my out of Veritas way of looking at mirrors. Another reason for wanting it this way is that IF the functionality of splitting mirrors comes into ZFS whereby we can import them into a new pool or even a new LDOM, then we know exactly the boundary

Re: [zfs-discuss] # devices in raidz.

2006-11-15 Thread Richard Elling - PAE
Torrey McMahon wrote: Richard Elling - PAE wrote: Torrey McMahon wrote: Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Torrey, Friday, November 10, 2006, 11:31:31 PM, you wrote: [SNIP] Tunable in a form of pool property, with default 100%. On the other hand maybe simple algorithm Veritas has used is good e

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS send/receive VS. scp

2006-11-15 Thread Jason J. W. Williams
Hi Darren, The copy is going between these two machines: Source: SunFire X4100 Dual 2.2Ghz Opteron (single core) 2GB RAM - SAN Attached (STK FLX210) - ZFS RAID-Z zpool Destination: SunFire T2000 8-Core 1.2GHz T1 w/ 8GB RAM - SAN Attached (STK FLX210) - ZFS RAID-Z zpool No compression is used i

[zfs-discuss] Re: performance question

2006-11-15 Thread Mattias Engdegård
Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >1. branching complexity (addressed with raw cpu power) >2. database performance (addressed with RAM) >3. file xfer performance ("asynchronous" wrt db updates as long as the > db is on a different disk from the files, so doesn't affect concurrency > but

Re: [zfs-discuss] bogus zfs error message on boot

2006-11-15 Thread Eric Schrock
This is likely a variation of: 6401126 FM reports 'pool data unavailable' because of timing between FM and mounting of file systems Basically, what's happening is that ZFS is trying to open the pool before the underlying device backing the vdev is available. My guess is that your new hardware i

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: performance question

2006-11-15 Thread Frank Cusack
On November 15, 2006 4:40:36 PM + Mattias Engdegård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: listman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: What's the average size of your files? Do you have many file deletions/moves going on? I'm not that familiar with how Perforce handles moving files around. average size of

[zfs-discuss] Re: performance question

2006-11-15 Thread Mattias Engdegård
listman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What's the average size of your files? Do you have many file >> deletions/moves going on? I'm not that familiar with how Perforce >> handles moving files around. >> >average size of my files seems to be around 4k, there can be >thousands of files being mov

Re: [zfs-discuss] bogus zfs error message on boot

2006-11-15 Thread Frank Cusack
On November 16, 2006 1:18:22 AM +1100 James McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11/15/06, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After swapping some hardware and rebooting: SUNW-MSG-ID: ZFS-8000-CS, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1, SEVERITY: Major EVENT-TIME: Tue Nov 14 21:37:55 PST 2006 PLATFORM: SUN

Re: [zfs-discuss] bogus zfs error message on boot

2006-11-15 Thread Asif Iqbal
On 11/15/06, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After swapping some hardware and rebooting: SUNW-MSG-ID: ZFS-8000-CS, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1, SEVERITY: Major EVENT-TIME: Tue Nov 14 21:37:55 PST 2006 PLATFORM: SUNW,Sun-Fire-T1000, CSN: -, HOSTNAME: SOURCE: zfs-diagnosis, REV: 1.0 EVENT-ID: 60b3

Re: [zfs-discuss] bogus zfs error message on boot

2006-11-15 Thread James McPherson
On 11/15/06, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: After swapping some hardware and rebooting: SUNW-MSG-ID: ZFS-8000-CS, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1, SEVERITY: Major EVENT-TIME: Tue Nov 14 21:37:55 PST 2006 PLATFORM: SUNW,Sun-Fire-T1000, CSN: -, HOSTNAME: SOURCE: zfs-diagnosis, REV: 1.0 EVENT-ID: 60b3

Re: [zfs-discuss] Snapshot of a clone?

2006-11-15 Thread Darren J Moffat
Prashanth Radhakrishnan wrote: Hi, Is it possible to create snapshots off ZFS clones and further clones off those snapshots recursively? Yes. -- Darren J Moffat ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/m

[zfs-discuss] Snapshot of a clone?

2006-11-15 Thread Prashanth Radhakrishnan
Hi, Is it possible to create snapshots off ZFS clones and further clones off those snapshots recursively? thanks, Prashanth ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] Re: [install-discuss] Re: Caiman Architecture document posted for review

2006-11-15 Thread Casper . Dik
Previously I wrote: >I still don't like forcing ZFS on people, though; I've found that ZFS >does not work on 1GB SPARC systems; I found that a rather high lower limit. > >(Whenever the NFS find runs over the zpool, the system hangs) It appears that this is a regression in build 52 or 51, I filed

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root

2006-11-15 Thread Casper . Dik
>I think we first need to define what state "up" actually is. Is it the >kernel booted ? Is it the root file system mounted ? Is it we reached >milestone all ? Is it we reached milestone all with no services in >maintenance ? Is it no services in maintenance that weren't on the last > bo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root

2006-11-15 Thread Casper . Dik
>On 15/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >I suppose it depends how 'catastrophic' the failture is, but if it's >> >very low level, >> >booting another root probabyl won't help, and if it's too high level, how >> >will >> >you detect it (i.e. you've booted the kernel, but i

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root

2006-11-15 Thread Darren J Moffat
Dick Davies wrote: On 15/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I suppose it depends how 'catastrophic' the failture is, but if it's >very low level, >booting another root probabyl won't help, and if it's too high level, how will >you detect it (i.e. you've booted the kernel, bu

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS send/receive VS. scp

2006-11-15 Thread Darren J Moffat
Jason J. W. Williams wrote: Hi there, I've been comparing using the ZFS send/receive function over SSH to simply scp'ing the contents of snapshot, and have found for me the performance is 2x faster for scp. Can you give some more details about the configuration of the two machines involved an

Re: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root

2006-11-15 Thread Dick Davies
On 15/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I suppose it depends how 'catastrophic' the failture is, but if it's >very low level, >booting another root probabyl won't help, and if it's too high level, how will >you detect it (i.e. you've booted the kernel, but it is buggy). If it

Fwd: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root

2006-11-15 Thread Dick Davies
On 14/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Actually, we have considered this. On both SPARC and x86, there will be >a way to specify the root file system (i.e., the bootable dataset) to be >booted, >at either the GRUB prompt (for x86) or the OBP prompt (for SPARC). >If no root f

Re: [zfs-discuss] Some performance questions with ZFS/NFS/DNLC at snv_48

2006-11-15 Thread Sanjeev Bagewadi
Tomas, Apologies for delayed response... Tomas Ögren wrote: Interesting ! So, it is not the ARC which is consuming too much memory It is some other piece (not sure if it belongs to ZFS) which is causing the crunch... Or the other possibility is that ARC ate up too much and caused a near

Re: [zfs-discuss] performance question

2006-11-15 Thread listman
On Nov 15, 2006, at 1:09 AM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:What's the average size of your files? Do you have many file deletions/moves going on? I'm not that familiar with how Perforce handles moving files around. average size of my files seems to be around 4k, there can be thousands of files being m

Re: [zfs-discuss] performance question

2006-11-15 Thread Jason J. W. Williams
Listman, What's the average size of your files? Do you have many file deletions/moves going on? I'm not that familiar with how Perforce handles moving files around. XFS is bad at small files (worse than most file systems), as SGI optimized it for larger files (> 64K). You might see a performance

[zfs-discuss] ZFS send/receive VS. scp

2006-11-15 Thread Jason J. W. Williams
Hi there, I've been comparing using the ZFS send/receive function over SSH to simply scp'ing the contents of snapshot, and have found for me the performance is 2x faster for scp. Has anyone else noticed ZFS send/receive to be noticeably slower? Best Regards, Jason __