> Are there any plans to support ZFS for write-only
> media such as
> optical storage? It seems that if mirroring or even
> zraid is used
> that ZFS would be a good basis for long term archival
> storage.
A simple solution would be to set up a zpool using two devices (real or ZVOL)
that are th
[i]It only scrubs the "used space" so it largely depends on how much data
you have stored in the pool.
Watch it with snapshots. I believe there is still a bug that restarts
(or kills) scrubbing operations in case a new snapshot is taken. If you
have automatic snapshots, that's something to keep an
Sam wrote:
> Thanks all, I guess I'll setup a process to start scrubbing at 1am once or
> twice a month. Any estimates on how much time it takes to scrub 10x500GB
> drives (3.7TB effective)?
>
The time to scrub is largely dependent on how much data you have,
not the size of the disks. There
Thanks all, I guess I'll setup a process to start scrubbing at 1am once or
twice a month. Any estimates on how much time it takes to scrub 10x500GB
drives (3.7TB effective)?
Sam
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Bob,
ADM, with an underlying ZFS filesystem, will provide a great archiving
solution
when fully implemented. It allows for file replication, migration from
disk to
tape/optical/more disk, copies any number you may want, and allows for
policy management
of the archives. It's underlying media m
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Mark A. Carlson wrote:
> Interesting problem. And yes you are right, there are a number
> of problems to solve here, see:
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/mac/en_US/entry/open_archive
Standards and open source are clearly the way to go. Many open source
applications have already be
Interesting problem. And yes you are right, there are a number
of problems to solve here, see:
http://blogs.sun.com/mac/en_US/entry/open_archive
-- mark
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Mark A. Carlson wrote:
Maybe what you want is to archive files off to optical media?
Perhap
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Mark A. Carlson wrote:
> Maybe what you want is to archive files off to optical media?
>
> Perhaps ADM - http://opensolaris.org/os/project/adm ?
That looks interesting, but true archiving is needed. The level of
archiving for this application is that copies would be kept th
Maybe what you want is to archive files off to optical media?
Perhaps ADM - http://opensolaris.org/os/project/adm ?
-- mark
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Dana H. Myers wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Are there any plans to support ZFS for write-only media such as optical
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Dana H. Myers wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>> Are there any plans to support ZFS for write-only media such as optical
>> storage? It seems that if mirroring or even zraid is used that ZFS would
>> be a good basis for long term archival storage.
> I'm just going to assume
Hi Sam,
You might review the ZFS best practice site for maintenance
recommendations, here:
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide
Cindy
Sam wrote:
> I have a 10x500 disc file server with ZFS+, do I need to perform any sort of
> periodic maintenance to the files
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> Are there any plans to support ZFS for write-only media such as
> optical storage? It seems that if mirroring or even zraid is used
> that ZFS would be a good basis for long term archival storage.
I'm just going to assume that "write-only" here means "write-once,
read-ma
Are there any plans to support ZFS for write-only media such as
optical storage? It seems that if mirroring or even zraid is used
that ZFS would be a good basis for long term archival storage.
Has this been considered? I expect that it is possible today by using
files as the underlying media
> I haven't done that particular comparison. (zfs send isn't useful for backup
> - doesn't span tapes, doesn't hold an index of the files.) But I have compared
> it against various varieties of tar for moving data between machines, and
> the performance of 'zfs send' wasn't particularly good - I
Hi Mario,
Mario Goebbels wrote:
>> ZFS can use block sizes up to 128k. If the data is compressed, then
>> this size will be larger when decompressed.
>>
>
> ZFS allows you to use variable blocksizes (sized a power of 2 from 512
> to 128k), and as far as I know, a compressed block is put into
Hello Peter,
Sunday, April 20, 2008, 7:47:31 PM, you wrote:
>> How does 'zfs send' performance compare with a traditional incremental
>> backup system?
PT> I haven't done that particular comparison. (zfs send isn't useful for backup
PT> - doesn't span tapes, doesn't hold an index of the files.)
16 matches
Mail list logo
