It occured to me that there are scenarios where it would be useful to be
able to zfs send -i A B where B is a snapshot older than A. I am
trying to design an encrypted disk-based off-site backup solution on top
of ZFS, where budget is the primary constraint, and I wish zfs send/recv
would allow me
Hello James,
Friday, June 15, 2007, 3:40:29 PM, you wrote:
JL Customer asks:
JL Will SunCluster 3.2 support ZFS zpool created with MPxIO devices instead
JL of the corresponding DID devices?
Works perfectly.
btw: you don't have to use DID devices with ZFS.
JL Will it cause any support issues?
Upgrade to SNV60 or better ..
gino
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
i think i have read somewhere that zfs gzip
compression doesn`t scale well since the in-kernel
compression isn`t done multi-threaded.
is this true - and if so - will this be fixed ?
If you're writing lots of data, zfs gzip compression
might not be a good idea for a desktop machine, because
2. ZFS doesn't make much sense for high-performance laptops. Laptop drives
are slow enough without artificially increasing the number of seeks on
writes. Apple makes a LOT of money from laptops. It's also unclear how well
ZFS would play with other latency- and CPU-sensitive applications
Here's one possible reason that a read-only ZFS would be useful: DVD-ROM
distribution.
built-in compression works for DVDs, too.
Sector errors on DVD are not uncommon. Writing a DVD in ZFS format with
duplicated data blocks would help protect against that problem, at the cost
of
On 18 June, 2007 - Mario Goebbels sent me these 3,2K bytes:
Also, where does this single disk RAID notion come from? This sounds
actually interesting. Is this a project actually in progress or to be
considered? Sure, it doesn't prevent data loss on disk failure, however
may improve the safety
I am currently using 6 drives and a 550W power supply, so I'm not pushing the
hardware at this point. I do understand your point. However, if you are
willing to mod the case, there is room for a second power supply above where
the primary p/s mounts. The case modification should be fairly
Michael Hase wrote:
Hi Victor,
the kernel panic in bug 6424466 resulted from overwriting some areas
of the disks, in this case I would expect at least strange things -
ok, not exactly a panic. In my case there was no messsing around
with the underlying disks. The fix only seems to avoid the
Those are interesting results.
yes, indeed
Does this mean you've already written lzo support into ZFS?
no, i`m not a real coder, but there exists an lzo patch for zfs-fuse which
has also been discussed here, afaik.
not sure if this has already been included in zfs-fuse tree - just wanted to
The configuration of any vdev that you create does not constrain you
with any vdevs you want to add to the pool in the future. You can start
with any of your three choices above and then add any of the other three
to the same pool.
'zpool add' will complain if the number of disks
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:57:29AM -0700, Darren Dunham wrote:
I think it's mainly to keep you from doing something silly without
meaning to.
That's certainly a good reason. :)
If you have the same type and columns, then you have the same
availability expectations. If instead you take a 5
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 09:38:51PM -0700, Anton B. Rang wrote:
Sector errors on DVD are not uncommon. Writing a DVD in ZFS format
with duplicated data blocks would help protect against that problem, at
the cost of 50% or so disk space. That sounds like a lot, but with
BluRay etc. coming along,
This LZO issue is something that might crop up again and again in
different shapes. If ZFS is being adopted on different operating
systems, people might start cooking their own soups.
What are the plans to keep this under control? What if Unix
Variant/Clone X suddenly decides their ZFS code needs
On 6/18/07, Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now lets consider a worse case, what if
Unix Variant Y thinks it figured out some nice performance tweaks, but
requires changes to the on-disk layout?
Perhaps a variant on Knuth's TeX license could be used? You can do
what you like with it,
Mario Goebbels wrote:
This LZO issue is something that might crop up again and again in
different shapes. If ZFS is being adopted on different operating
systems, people might start cooking their own soups.
I don't know about any legal restrictions that might or might not be in
place to
I have a cu that would like to increase a mount point with his
zpoolCu explains below.
I need to increase the size of one of the mount points, i.e. /d01. I
need the procedure to do this while on line. attached is the information
I have on my server
as you will see I have the command
If you have the same type and columns, then you have the same
availability expectations. If instead you take a 5 disk raidz and add a
2 disk stripe, you're dramatically changing the availability
expectations. So the force is required.
Certainly, but adding a mirror doesn't degrade the
On 6/15/07, Will Murnane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting in this regard is the yy-0221:
http://www.directron.com/yy0221bk.html with 10 3.5 bays (well-cooled,
too - fans mounted in front of 8 of them) and 6 5.25 bays. This
doesn't leave much room for a power supply, unfortunately - the
On June 16, 2007 7:37:31 PM -0400 Will Murnane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I wish someone would make a card with a pci-express to pci-x bridge
chip and two of those controllers on it. Hmm, I just realized I'm
describing the highpoint 2340:
http://www.highpoint-tech.com/USA/rr2340.htm
eh, sorry
Thanks for all the comments. Very helpful.
I have another question. The six disk raidz2 pool works, but I noticed in
Richard Elling's blog that a raidz/raidz2 pool has the read performance of a
single drive (unless I misread something). What if I create 2x three disk
raidz vdevs and put them in
Joe S wrote:
Thanks for all the comments. Very helpful.
I have another question. The six disk raidz2 pool works, but I noticed
in Richard Elling's blog that a raidz/raidz2 pool has the read
performance of a single drive (unless I misread something). What if I
create 2x three disk raidz vdevs
On 6/19/07, Joe S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for all the comments. Very helpful.
I have another question. The six disk raidz2 pool works, but I noticed in
Richard Elling's blog that a raidz/raidz2 pool has the read performance of a
single drive (unless I misread something). What if I
Marc Bevand wrote:
o In order to restore the latest snapshot T-0, all the zfs streams,
T-2, T-1 and T-0, have to be decrypted, then zfs receive'd. It is
slow and inconvenient.
True, but presumably restoring the snapshots is a rare event.
o My example only backs up the last 3
24 matches
Mail list logo