Hi All,
I am after some ZFS success stories in the ZFS community. The stories of
replacing Veritas VM/FS with ZFS in bigger data volume environments. If there
is please let me know the size and type of storage used, with applications ie:
DB etc.
Likewise I will take a hit on horror stories
Hi,
I would like to ask, whether is it possible to have my rootpool (it means zpool
for root filesystem) on GPT partition ? From documentation, it looks like that
I need to have Solaris fdisk partition on my disk and to have VTOC in that
partition. Is it true ?
If that is true, is there any
I
suspect ZFS will change that game in the future.
In
particular for someone doing lots of editing,
snapshots can help recover from user error.
Ah - so now the rationalization has changed to
snapshot support.
Unfortunately for ZFS, snapshot support is pretty
commonly available
On 11/7/07, can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As I said in the post to which you responded, I
consider ZFS's ease of management to be more
important (given that even in high-end installations
storage management costs dwarf storage equipment
costs) than its real but relatively
basically you would add ZFS redundancy level, if you want to be
protected from silent data corruption (data corruption that could
occur somewhere along the IO path)
- XP12000 has all the features to protect from hardware failure (no-SPOF)
- ZFS has all the feature to protect from silent data
Why are we still feeding this troll? Paid trolls deserve no response and there
is no value in continuing this thread. (And no guys, he isn't being paid by
NetApp.. think bigger) The troll will continue to try to downplay features of
zfs and the community will counter...and on and on.
This
I will be putting 4 500GB SATA disks in my Ultra80. I currently have
two 10K rpm 73G SCSI disks in it with 10G for the OS (UFS) and the
remaining space for a ZFS pool (the two remaining partitions are setup
in a mirror).
Would it be worth my while to move all the data off of the zfs partitions
Seconded. Redundant controllers means you get one controller that
locks them both up, as much as it means you've got backup.
Best Regards,
Jason
On Mar 21, 2007 4:03 PM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JS wrote:
I'd definitely prefer owning a sort of SAN solution that would basically
Constantin Gonzalez wrote:
Hi Paul,
yes, ZFS is platform agnostic and I know it works in SANs.
For the USB stick case, you may have run into labeling issues. Maybe
Solaris SPARC did not recognize the x64 type label on the disk (which
is strange, because it should...).
Did you try making
Hello Brian,
Wednesday, December 5, 2007, 9:15:10 PM, you wrote:
BH I will be putting 4 500GB SATA disks in my Ultra80. I currently have
BH two 10K rpm 73G SCSI disks in it with 10G for the OS (UFS) and the
BH remaining space for a ZFS pool (the two remaining partitions are setup
BH in a
my personal-professional data are important (this is
my valuation, and it's an assumption you can't
dispute).
Nor was I attempting to: I was trying to get you to evaluate ZFS's incremental
risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if you actually did so you'd likely be
surprised at how little
Hi ;
When will ZFS support multiple servers accessing same file system ?
Best regards
http://www.sun.com/ http://www.sun.com/emrkt/sigs/6g_top.gif
Mertol Ozyoney
Storage Practice - Sales Manager
Sun Microsystems, TR
Istanbul TR
Phone +902123352200
Mobile +905339310752
Fax
trolling
can you guess? wrote:
he isn't being
paid by NetApp.. think bigger
O frabjous day! Yet *another* self-professed psychic, but one whose internal
voices offer different counsel.
While I don't have to be psychic myself to know that they're *all* wrong
(that's an
I create two zfs's on one pool of four disks with two mirrors, such as...
/
zpool create tank mirror disk1 disk2 mirror disk3 disk4
zfs create tank/fs1
zfs create tank/fs2/
Are fs1 and fs2 striped across all four disks?
If two disks fail that represent a 2-way mirror, do I lose data?
Brian.
On 5-Dec-07, at 4:19 AM, can you guess? wrote:
On 11/7/07, can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source
approach
which may allow that to happen, so the real
question
becomes just how it compares with equally
inexpensive
current and potential
On 4-Dec-07, at 9:35 AM, can you guess? wrote:
Your response here appears to refer to a different post in this
thread.
I never said I was a typical consumer.
Then it's unclear how your comment related to the material which
you quoted (and hence to which it was apparently responding).
The file systems are striped between the two mirrors. (If your disks are A, B,
C, D then a single file's blocks would reside on disks A+B, then C+D, then A+B
again.)
If you lose A and B, or C and D, you lose the whole pool. (Hence if you have
two power supplies, for instance, you'd probably
I have budget constraints then I can use only user-level storage.
until I discovered zfs I used subversion and git, but none of them is designe
d to manage gigabytes of data, some to be versioned, some to be unversioned.
I can't afford silent data corruption and, if the final response is
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Stefano Spinucci wrote:
On 11/7/07, can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source approach
which may allow that to happen, so the real question
becomes just how it compares with equally inexpensive
current and potential alternatives
Hi Paul,
yes, ZFS is platform agnostic and I know it works in SANs.
For the USB stick case, you may have run into labeling issues. Maybe
Solaris SPARC did not recognize the x64 type label on the disk (which
is strange, because it should...).
Did you try making sure that ZFS creates an EFI label
I was trying to get you
to evaluate ZFS's
incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if
you actually
did so you'd likely be surprised at how little
difference it makes
- at least if you're at all rational about
assessing it).
ok .. i'll bite since there's no ignore
That would require coming up with something solid. Much like his
generalization that there's already snapshotting and checksumming that exists
for linux. yet when he was called out, he responded with a 20 page rant
because there doesn't exist such a solution. It's far easier to condescend
On Dec 5, 2007, at 17:50, can you guess? wrote:
my personal-professional data are important (this is
my valuation, and it's an assumption you can't
dispute).
Nor was I attempting to: I was trying to get you to evaluate ZFS's
incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if you
he isn't being
paid by NetApp.. think bigger
O frabjous day! Yet *another* self-professed psychic, but one whose internal
voices offer different counsel.
While I don't have to be psychic myself to know that they're *all* wrong
(that's an advantage of fact-based rather than faith-based
On Dec 5, 2007 9:54 PM, Brian Lionberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I create two zfs's on one pool of four disks with two mirrors, such as...
/
zpool create tank mirror disk1 disk2 mirror disk3 disk4
zfs create tank/fs1
zfs create tank/fs2/
Are fs1 and fs2 striped across all four disks?
Yes
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Brian Hechinger wrote:
I will be putting 4 500GB SATA disks in my Ultra80. I currently have
two 10K rpm 73G SCSI disks in it with 10G for the OS (UFS) and the
remaining space for a ZFS pool (the two remaining partitions are setup
in a mirror).
Would it be worth my while
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Eric Haycraft wrote:
[... reformatted ]
Why are we still feeding this troll? Paid trolls deserve no response
and there is no value in continuing this thread. (And no guys, he
isn't being paid by NetApp.. think bigger) The troll will continue
to try to downplay
...
Hi bill, only a question:
I'm an ex linux user migrated to solaris for zfs
and
its checksumming;
So the question is: do you really need that
feature (please
quantify that need if you think you do), or do you
just like it
because it makes you feel all warm and safe?
can you guess? wrote:
Primarily its checksumming features, since other open source solutions
support simple disk scrubbing (which given its ability to catch most
deteriorating disk sectors before they become unreadable probably has a
greater effect on reliability than checksums in any
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Stefano Spinucci wrote:
On 11/7/07, can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source
approach
which may allow that to happen, so the real
question
becomes just how it compares with equally
inexpensive
current and potential
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, can you guess? wrote:
snip reformatted .
Changing ZFS's approach to snapshots from block-oriented to
audit-trail-oriented, in order to pave the way for a journaled
rather than shadow-paged approach to transactional consistency
(which then makes data
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Al Hopper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Eric Haycraft wrote:
[... reformatted ]
Why are we still feeding this troll? Paid trolls deserve no response and
there is no value in continuing this thread. (And no guys, he isn't being
paid by NetApp.. think bigger) The
This might have been affected by the cache flush issue -- if the 3310 flushes
its NVRAM cache to disk on SYNCHRONIZE CACHE commands, then ZFS is penalizing
itself. I don't know whether the 3310 firmware has been updated to support the
SYNC_NV bit. It wasn't obvious on Sun's site where to
Literacy has nothing to do with the glaringly obvious BS you keep spewing.
Rather than answer a question, which couldn't be answered, because you were
full of it, you tried to convince us all he really didn't know what he wanted.
The assumption sure made an a$$ out of someone, but you should
I have budget constraints then I can use only
user-level storage.
until I discovered zfs I used subversion and git,
but none of them is designe
d to manage gigabytes of data, some to be
versioned, some to be unversioned.
I can't afford silent data corruption and, if the
final
apologies in advance for prolonging this thread .. i had considered
taking this completely offline, but thought of a few people at least
who might find this discussion somewhat interesting .. at the least i
haven't seen any mention of Merkle trees yet as the nerd in me yearns
for
On Dec
what are you terming as ZFS' incremental risk reduction?
I'm not Bill, but I'll try to explain.
Compare a system using ZFS to one using another file system -- say, UFS, XFS,
or ext3.
Consider which situations may lead to data loss in each case, and the
probability of each such situation.
Hi everyone,
I have been following this thread and I feel that this has been resolved in the
ZFS version 8, which is done as follows,
bash-3.00# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
tank 266K 263G 32.0K /tank
tank/bm 28.8K 5.00G 28.8K /tank/bm
Now, not being a psychic myself, I can't state with
authority that Stefano really meant to ask the
question that he posed rather than something else.
In retrospect, I suppose that some of his
surrounding phrasing *might* suggest that he was
attempting (however unskillfully) to twist my
On Dec 6, 2007, at 00:03, Anton B. Rang wrote:
what are you terming as ZFS' incremental risk reduction?
I'm not Bill, but I'll try to explain.
Compare a system using ZFS to one using another file system -- say,
UFS, XFS, or ext3.
Consider which situations may lead to data loss in each
Literacy has nothing to do with the glaringly obvious
BS you keep spewing.
Actually, it's central to the issue: if you were capable of understanding what
I've been talking about (or at least sufficiently humble to recognize the
depths of your ignorance), you'd stop polluting this forum with
Actually, it's central to the issue: if you were
capable of understanding what I've been talking about
(or at least sufficiently humble to recognize the
depths of your ignorance), you'd stop polluting this
forum with posts lacking any technical content
whatsoever.
I don't speak full of
Now, not being a psychic myself, I can't state
with
authority that Stefano really meant to ask the
question that he posed rather than something else.
In retrospect, I suppose that some of his
surrounding phrasing *might* suggest that he was
attempting (however unskillfully) to twist
I suppose we're all just wrong.
By George, you've got it!
- bill
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
44 matches
Mail list logo
