How does the ability to set a snapshot schedule for a particular *file* or
*folder* interact with the fact that ZFS snapshots are on a per-filesystem
basis? This seems a poor fit. If I choose to snapshot my "Important
Documents" folder every 5 minutes, that's implicitly creating snapshots of m
...
just rearrange your blocks sensibly -
> and to at least some degree you could do that while
> they're still cache-resident
Lots of discussion has passed under the bridge since that observation above,
but it may have contained the core of a virtually free solution: let your
table become fr
On Nov 20, 2007 6:34 AM, MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So there is no current way to specify the creation of
> > a 3 disk raid-z
> > array with a known missing disk?
>
> Can someone answer that? Or does the zpool command NOT accommodate the
> creation of a degraded raidz array?
>
can't start
I am "rolling my own" replication using zfs send|recv through the
cluster agent framework and a custom HA shared local storage set of
scripts(similar to http://www.posix.brte.com.br/blog/?p=75 but
without avs). I am not using zfs off of shared storage in the
supported way. So this is a bi
> On the other hand, the pool of 3 disks is obviously
> going to be much slower than the pool of 5
while today that's true, "someday" io will be
balanced by the latency of vdevs rather than
the number... plus two vdevs are always going
to be faster than one vdev, even if one is slower
than the
asa wrote:
> Well then this is probably the wrong list to be hounding
>
> I am looking for something like
> http://blog.wpkg.org/2007/10/26/stale-nfs-file-handle/
> Where when fileserver A dies, fileserver B can come up, grab the same
> IP address via some mechanism(in this case I am using sun c
Well then this is probably the wrong list to be hounding
I am looking for something like
http://blog.wpkg.org/2007/10/26/stale-nfs-file-handle/
Where when fileserver A dies, fileserver B can come up, grab the same
IP address via some mechanism(in this case I am using sun cluster) and
keep on
>>> the 3124 looks perfect. The only problem is the only thing I found on
>>> ebay
>>> was for the 3132, which is PCIe, which doesn't help me. :) I'm not
>>> finding
>>> anything for 3124 other than the data on silicon image's site. Do you
>>> know
>>> of any cards I should be looking for that
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Tim Cook wrote:
> So I have 8 drives total.
>
> 5x500GB seagate 7200.10
> 3x300GB seagate 7200.10
>
> I'm trying to decide, would I be better off just creating two separate pools?
>
> pool1 = 5x500gb raidz
> pool2= 3x300gb raidz
... reformatted ...
> or would I be better off
Brian Lionberger wrote:
> Is there a preferred method to test a raidz2.
> I would like to see the the disks recover on there own after simulating
> a disk failure.
> I'm have a 4 disk configuration.
It really depends on what failure mode you're interested in. The
most common failure we see from
So I have 8 drives total.
5x500GB seagate 7200.10
3x300GB seagate 7200.10
I'm trying to decide, would I be better off just creating two separate pools?
pool1 = 5x500gb raidz
pool2= 3x300gb raidz
or would I be better off creating one large pool, with two raid sets? I'm
trying to figure out if
Asif Iqbal wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 11:47 PM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Asif Iqbal wrote:
>>
>>> I have the following layout
>>>
>>> A 490 with 8 1.8Ghz and 16G mem. 6 6140s with 2 FC controllers using
>>> A1 anfd B1 controller port 4Gbps speed.
>>> Each controller has
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Jason P. Warr wrote:
>
>
>> the 3124 looks perfect. The only problem is the only thing I found on ebay
>> was for the 3132, which is PCIe, which doesn't help me. :) I'm not finding
>> anything for 3124 other than the data on silicon image's site. Do you know
>> of any cards I
>the 3124 looks perfect. The only problem is the only thing I found on ebay
>was for the 3132, which is PCIe, which doesn't help me. :) I'm not finding
>anything for 3124 other than the data on silicon image's site. Do you know
>of any cards I should be looking for that uses this chip?
http://w
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 02:01:34PM -0600, Al Hopper wrote:
>
> a) the SuperMicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 is an 8-port SATA card available for
> around $110 IIRC.
Yeah, I'd like to spend a lot less than that, especially as I only need
2 ports. :)
> b) There is also a PCI-X version of the older LSI 4-port (
On Nov 20, 2007 10:40 AM, Andrew Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What kind of workload are you running. If you are you doing these
> measurements with some sort of "write as fast as possible" microbenchmark,
Oracle database with blocksize 16K .. populating the database as fast I can
> once
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Brian Hechinger wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 02:18:21PM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote:
>>> Right now I have noticed that LSI has recently began offering some
>>> lower-budget stuff; specifically I am looking at the MegaRAID SAS
>>> 8208ELP/XLP, which are very reasonably pric
Bill Moloney wrote:
> I have an Intel based server running dual P3 Xeons (Intel A46044-609,
> 1.26GHz) with a BIOS from American Megatrends Inc (AMIBIOS, SCB2
> production BIOS rev 2.0, BIOS build 0039) with 2GB of RAM
>
> when I attempt to install snv-76 the system panics during the initial
> boo
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Ross wrote:
>>> doing these writes now sounds like a
>>> lot of work. I'm guessing that needing two full-path
>>> updates to achieve this means you're talking about a
>>> much greater write penalty.
>>
>> Not all that much. Each full-path update is still
>> only a single wri
I have an Intel based server running dual P3 Xeons (Intel A46044-609, 1.26GHz)
with a BIOS from American Megatrends Inc (AMIBIOS, SCB2 production BIOS rev
2.0, BIOS build 0039) with 2GB of RAM
when I attempt to install snv-76 the system panics during the initial boot from
CD
I've been using th
comment on retries below...
Paul Boven wrote:
> Hi Eric, everyone,
>
> Eric Schrock wrote:
>> There have been many improvements in proactively detecting failure,
>> culminating in build 77 of Nevada. Earlier builds:
>>
>> - Were unable to distinguish device removal from devices misbehaving,
>>
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Paul Boven wrote:
>
> I seem to be having exactly the problems you are describing (see my
> postings with the subject 'zfs on a raid box'). So I would very much
> like to give b77 a try. I'm currently running b76, as that's the latest
> sxce that's availab
Is there a preferred method to test a raidz2.
I would like to see the the disks recover on there own after simulating
a disk failure.
I'm have a 4 disk configuration.
Brian.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolari
On Nov 20, 2007 5:33 PM, can you guess? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But the whole point of snapshots is that they don't
> > take up extra space on the disk. If a file (and
> > hence a block) is in every snapshot it doesn't mean
> > you've got multiple copies of it. You only have one
> > copy o
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:10:20AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/20/2007 10:11:50 AM:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:01:49AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Resilver and scrub are broken and restart when a snapshot is created
> > > -- the current workar
> But the whole point of snapshots is that they don't
> take up extra space on the disk. If a file (and
> hence a block) is in every snapshot it doesn't mean
> you've got multiple copies of it. You only have one
> copy of that block, it's just referenced by many
> snapshots.
I used the wording "
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/20/2007 10:11:50 AM:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:01:49AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Resilver and scrub are broken and restart when a snapshot is created
> > -- the current workaround is to disable snaps while resilvering,
> > the ZFS team is working on the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Calum Benson
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:12 AM
To: Darren J Moffat
Cc: Henry Zhang; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org; Desktop discuss; Christian
Kelly
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] [desktop-discuss] ZFS snap
But the whole point of snapshots is that they don't take up extra space on the
disk. If a file (and hence a block) is in every snapshot it doesn't mean
you've got multiple copies of it. You only have one copy of that block, it's
just referenced by many snapshots.
The thing is, the location of
On Nov 19, 2007 10:08 PM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Cone wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > Here's a possibly-silly proposal from a non-expert.
> >
> > Summarising the problem:
> >- there's a conflict between small ZFS record size, for good random
> > update performance, and
Calum Benson wrote:
> You're right that they "can", and while that probably does write it off,
> I wonder how many really do. (And we could possibly do something clever
> like a semi-opaque overlay anyway, we may not have to replace the
> background entirely.)
Almost everyone I've seen using t
On 20 Nov 2007, at 14:31, Christian Kelly wrote:
>
> Ah, I see. So, for phase 0, the 'Enable Automatic Snapshots' option
> would only be available for/work for existing ZFSes. Then at some
> later
> stage, create them on the fly.
Yes, that's the scenario for the mockups I posted, anyway... if t
On 20 Nov 2007, at 15:04, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Calum Benson wrote:
>> On 20 Nov 2007, at 13:35, Christian Kelly wrote:
>>> Take the example I gave before, where you have a pool called,
>>> say, pool1. In the pool you have two ZFSes: pool1/export and
>>> pool1/ export/home. So, suppose th
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:01:49AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Resilver and scrub are broken and restart when a snapshot is created
> -- the current workaround is to disable snaps while resilvering,
> the ZFS team is working on the issue for a long term fix.
But, no snapshot was taken. If so
And, just to add one more point, since pretty much everything the host
writes to the controller eventually has to make it out to the disk
drives, the long term average write rate cannot exceed the rate that
the backend disk subsystem can absorb the writes, regardless of the
workload. (An except
Hello all...
I think all of you agree that "performance" is a great topic in NFS.
So, when we talk about NFS and ZFS we imagine a great combination/solution.
But one is not dependent on another, actually are two well distinct
technologies. ZFS has a lot of features that all we know about, and
Resilver and scrub are broken and restart when a snapshot is created -- the
current workaround is to disable snaps while resilvering, the ZFS team is
working on the issue for a long term fix.
-Wade
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/20/2007 09:58:19 AM:
> On b66:
> # zpool replace tww c0t600A0B800
On b66:
# zpool replace tww c0t600A0B8000299966059E4668CBD3d0 \
c0t600A0B8000299CCC06734741CD4Ed0
< some hours later>
# zpool status tww
pool: tww
state: DEGRADED
status: One or more devices is currently being resilvered. The pool will
continue to function, possi
Rats - I was right the first time: there's a messy problem with snapshots.
The problem is that the parent of the child that you're about to update in
place may *already* be in one or more snapshots because one or more of its
*other* children was updated since each snapshot was created. If so,
What kind of workload are you running. If you are you doing these
measurements with some sort of "write as fast as possible"
microbenchmark, once the 4 GB of nvram is full, you will be limited by
backend performance (FC disks and their interconnect) rather than the
host / controller bus.
Since
On 11/20/07, Asif Iqbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 7:01 AM, Chad Mynhier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/20/07, Asif Iqbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Nov 19, 2007 1:43 AM, Louwtjie Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 17, 2007 9:40 PM, Asif Iqbal <[EMAIL
Calum Benson wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2007, at 13:35, Christian Kelly wrote:
>> Take the example I gave before, where you have a pool called, say,
>> pool1. In the pool you have two ZFSes: pool1/export and pool1/
>> export/home. So, suppose the user chooses /export in nautilus and
>> adds this to th
On Nov 20, 2007 7:01 AM, Chad Mynhier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/20/07, Asif Iqbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 2007 1:43 AM, Louwtjie Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Nov 17, 2007 9:40 PM, Asif Iqbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > (Including storage-discuss)
> >
On Nov 20, 2007 1:48 AM, Louwtjie Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > That is still 256MB/s . I am getting about 194MB/s
>
> No, I don't think you can take 2Gbit / 8bits per byte and say 256MB is
> what you should get...
> Someone with far more FC knowledge can comment here. There must be
>
> > doing these writes now sounds like a
> > lot of work. I'm guessing that needing two full-path
> > updates to achieve this means you're talking about a
> > much greater write penalty.
>
> Not all that much. Each full-path update is still
> only a single write request to the disk, since all
>
> So there is no current way to specify the creation of
> a 3 disk raid-z
> array with a known missing disk?
Can someone answer that? Or does the zpool command NOT accommodate the
creation of a degraded raidz array?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Calum Benson wrote:
> Right, for Phase 0 the thinking was that you'd really have to manually
> set up whatever pools and filesystems you required first. So in your
> example, you (or, perhaps, the Indiana installer) would have had to
> set up /export/home/chris/Documents as a ZFS filesystem in
Louwtjie Burger wrote:
> Richard Elling wrote:
> >
> > >- COW probably makes that conflict worse
> > >
> > >
> >
> > This needs to be proven with a reproducible, real-world
> workload before it
> > makes sense to try to solve it. After all, if we cannot
> measure where
> > we are,
> > how ca
On 20 Nov 2007, at 13:35, Christian Kelly wrote:
>
> Take the example I gave before, where you have a pool called, say,
> pool1. In the pool you have two ZFSes: pool1/export and pool1/
> export/home. So, suppose the user chooses /export in nautilus and
> adds this to the backup list. Will the
...
> With regards sharing the disk resources with other
> programs, obviously it's down to the individual
> admins how they would configure this,
Only if they have an unconstrained budget.
but I would
> suggest that if you have a database with heavy enough
> requirements to be suffering notica
On 20 Nov 2007, at 12:56, Christian Kelly wrote:
> Hi Calum,
>
> heh, as it happens, I was tinkering with pygtk to see how difficult
> this would be :)
>
> Supposing I have a ZFS on my machine called root/export/home which
> is mounted on /export/home. Then I have my home dir as /export/home/
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 13:35 +, Christian Kelly wrote:
> What I'm suggesting is that the configuration presents a list of pools
> and their ZFSes and that you have a checkbox, backup/don't backup sort
> of an option.
That's basically the (hacked-up) zenity GUI I have at the moment on my
blog,
Hmm... that's a pain if updating the parent also means updating the parent's
checksum too. I guess the functionality is there for moving bad blocks, but
since that's likely to be a rare occurence, it wasn't something that would need
to be particularly efficient.
With regards sharing the disk r
> Time Machine is storing all in the system by default, but you still can
> select some ones that you don't like to store. And Time Machine don't
> use ZFS.
> Here we will use ZFS snapshot, and what it's working with is file
> system. In Nevada, the default file system is not ZFS, it means some
...
> My understanding of ZFS (in short: an upside down
> tree) is that each block is referenced by it's
> parent. So regardless of how many snapshots you take,
> each block is only ever referenced by one other, and
> I'm guessing that the pointer and checksum are both
> stored there.
>
> If that
Christian Kelly 写道:
> Hi Calum,
>
> heh, as it happens, I was tinkering with pygtk to see how difficult this
> would be :)
>
> Supposing I have a ZFS on my machine called root/export/home which is
> mounted on /export/home. Then I have my home dir as /export/home/chris.
> Say I only want to
Hi Calum,
heh, as it happens, I was tinkering with pygtk to see how difficult this
would be :)
Supposing I have a ZFS on my machine called root/export/home which is
mounted on /export/home. Then I have my home dir as /export/home/chris.
Say I only want to snapshot and backup /export/home/chris
In that case, this may be a much tougher nut to crack than I thought.
I'll be the first to admit that other than having seen a few presentations I
don't have a clue about the details of how ZFS works under the hood, however...
You mention that moving the old block means updating all it's ancesto
...
> - Nathan appears to have suggested a good workaround.
> Could ZFS be updated to have a 'contiguous' setting
> where blocks are kept together. This sacrifices
> write performance for read.
I had originally thought that this would be incompatible with ZFS's snapshot
mechanism, but with a m
Hi all,
We've been thinking a little about a more integrated desktop presence
for Tim Foster's ZFS backup and snapshot services[1]. Here are some
initial ideas about what a Phase 0 (snapshot only, not backup) user
experience might look like... comments welcome.
http://www.genunix.org/wiki/
On 11/20/07, Asif Iqbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 1:43 AM, Louwtjie Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 2007 9:40 PM, Asif Iqbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > (Including storage-discuss)
> > >
> > > I have 6 6140s with 96 disks. Out of which 64 of them are Seagate
My initial thought was that this whole thread may be irrelevant - anybody
wanting to run such a database is likely to use a specialised filesystem
optimised for it. But then I realised that for a database admin the integrity
checking and other benefits of ZFS would be very tempting, but only if
Hi MP,
MP wrote:
>> but my issue is that
>> not only the 'time left', but also the progress
>> indicator itself varies
>> wildly, and keeps resetting itself to 0%, not giving
>> any indication that
>
> Are you sure you are not being hit by this bug:
>
> http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/vi
> but my issue is that
> not only the 'time left', but also the progress
> indicator itself varies
> wildly, and keeps resetting itself to 0%, not giving
> any indication that
Are you sure you are not being hit by this bug:
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6343667
i.e.
Hi Eric, everyone,
Eric Schrock wrote:
> There have been many improvements in proactively detecting failure,
> culminating in build 77 of Nevada. Earlier builds:
>
> - Were unable to distinguish device removal from devices misbehaving,
> depending on the driver and hardware.
>
> - Did not dia
65 matches
Mail list logo
