Some more insight:
I have the following zpools setup:
aaa_zvol: 2 250GB IDE in Raid0
storage raidZ1:
1 500 GB IDE
1 500 GB SATA
//aaa_zvol/aaa_zvol (the zvol exported from the aaa_zvol pool)
When I run the array in a degraded mode, ie place one of the drives in the
offline state,
Sorry, I don't know what happened, but it seems like I was not subscribed to
receive replies for this thread so I never saw people's replies to my original
post... user error probably :)
jone, I think you hit the nail on the head: I *do* seem to remember issuing a
'zfs mount -a' at some point,
No probs, glad it worked for you too. It gave me quite a fright too when it
happened :)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Andre Lueno-re...@opensolaris.org wrote:
Hi Bogdan,
I'd recommend the following RAM minimums for a fair balance of performance.
700Mb 32-bit
1Gb 64-bit
OK, it probably means 2GB when it goes actually practical. :-) Thanks!
--
Kind regards, bm
Cannot refresh the package catalog today :
Unable to contact valid package server
Encountered the following error(s):
Unable to contact any configured publishers.
This is likely a network configuration problem.
Any known outage at opensolaris.org ? Or is it the network in between ?
Network
Damn, wrong list. Sorry !
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Hello,
I had two thumpers replicating via zfs incremental send/recv croned over ssh
with blowfish eneabled under 2008.11. The 2009.06 update nuked blowfish and my
cronjob failed in then deleted the snapshots on the master and slave servers.
now if I try to run the job I get the error:
cannot
Hi,
I just installed 2009.06 and found that compression isn't enabled by default
when filesystems are created. Does is make sense to have an RFE open for this?
(I'll open one tonight if need be.) We keep telling people to turn on
compression. Are there any situations where turning on
Hi Harry,
I use this stuff every day and I can't figure out the right syntax
either. :-)
Reviewing the zfs man page syntax, it looks like you should be able
to use this syntax:
# zfs list -t snapshot dataset
But it doesn't work:
# zfs list -t snapshot rpool/export
cannot open 'rpool/export':
According to this webpage, there are some errors that makes ZFS unusable under
certain conditions. That is not really optimal for an Enterprise file system.
In my opinion the ZFS team should focus on bug correction instead of adding new
functionality. The functionality that exists far surpass
Orvar Korvar no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote:
According to this webpage, there are some errors that makes ZFS unusable
under certain conditions. That is not really optimal for an Enterprise file
system. In my opinion the ZFS team should focus on bug correction instead of
adding new
Hi,
I just tried replicating a zfs dataset, which failed because the dataset
has a mountpoint set and zfs received tried to mount the target dataset
to the same directory.
I.e. I did the following:
$ zfs send -R mypool/h...@20090615 | zfs receive -d backup
cannot mount '/var/hg': directory
In the comments there are several people complaining of loosing data. That
doesnt sound to good. It takes a long time to build a good reputation, and 5
minutes to ruin it. We dont want ZFS to loose it's reputation of an uber file
system.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Orvar Korvar wrote:
In the comments there are several people complaining of loosing
data. That doesnt sound to good. It takes a long time to build a
good reputation, and 5 minutes to ruin it. We dont want ZFS to loose
it's reputation of an uber file system.
I recognize
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Orvar Korvar no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote:
According to this webpage, there are some errors that makes ZFS unusable
under certain conditions. That is not really optimal for an Enterprise file
so, besides performance there COULD be some stability issues.
thanks for the answers - i think i`ll stay with 32bit, even if there COULD be
issues. (i`m happy to report and help fixing those)
i don`t have free 64bit hardware around for building storage boxes.
--
This message posted from
Orvar Korvar wrote:
In the comments there are several people complaining of loosing data. That
doesnt sound to good. It takes a long time to build a good reputation, and 5
minutes to ruin it. We dont want ZFS to loose it's reputation of an uber file
system.
With due respect, I recommend
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Shannon Fiume wrote:
I just installed 2009.06 and found that compression isn't enabled by
default when filesystems are created. Does is make sense to have an
RFE open for this? (I'll open one tonight if need be.) We keep telling
people to turn on
* Shannon Fiume (shannon.fi...@sun.com) wrote:
Hi,
I just installed 2009.06 and found that compression isn't enabled by
default when filesystems are created. Does is make sense to have an
RFE open for this? (I'll open one tonight if need be.) We keep telling
people to turn on compression.
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:51:12 +0200
Thommy M. thommy.m.malmst...@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC there was a blog about I/O performance with ZFS stating that it
was faster with compression ON as it didn't have to wait for so much
data from the disks and that the CPU was fast at unpacking data. But
sure,
I had a zpool and was using the implicit zfs filesystem in it:
data 10.2G 124G 8.53G /var/tellme
d...@hotbackup.h2383.4M - 8.52G -
d...@hotbackup.h0025.9M - 8.52G -
d...@hotbackup.h0116.2M - 8.52G -
...
These contained
Ive asked the same question about 32bit. I created a thread and asked. It were
something like does 32bit ZFS fragments RAM? or something similar. As I
remember it, 32 bit had some issues. Mostly due to RAM fragmentation or
something similar. The result was that you had to restart your server
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, dick hoogendijk wrote:
IF at all, it certainly should not be the DEFAULT.
Compression is a choice, nothing more.
I respectfully disagree somewhat. Yes, compression shuould be a
choice, but I think the default should be for it to be enabled.
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA,
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Thommy M. wrote:
In most cases compression is not desireable. It consumes CPU and
results in uneven system performance.
IIRC there was a blog about I/O performance with ZFS stating that it was
faster with compression ON as it didn't have to wait for so much data
from the
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
In most cases compression is not desireable. It consumes CPU and results in
uneven system performance.
You actually have that backwards. :-) In most cases, compression is very
desirable. Performance studies have shown that today's CPUs can
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, dick hoogendijk wrote:
IF at all, it certainly should not be the DEFAULT.
Compression is a choice, nothing more.
I respectfully disagree somewhat. Yes, compression shuould be a
choice, but I think the default should be for it to be enabled.
I agree that Compression
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rich Teer wrote:
You actually have that backwards. :-) In most cases, compression is very
desirable. Performance studies have shown that today's CPUs can compress
data faster than it takes for the uncompressed data to be read or written.
Do you have a reference for
I had a 32 bit zfs server up for months with no such issue
Performance is not great but it's no buggier than anything else. War
stories from the initial zfs drops notwithstanding
khb...@gmail.com | keith.bier...@quantum.com
Sent from my iPod
On Jun 15, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Orvar Korvar
one of my disaster recovery servers has been running on 32bit hardware
(ancient northwood chip) for about a year. the only problems i've run into
are: slow (duh) and will not take disks that are bigger than 1tb. that is
kind of a bummer and means i'll have to switch to a 64bit base soon.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Orvar Korvarno-re...@opensolaris.org wrote:
According to this webpage, there are some errors that makes ZFS unusable
under certain conditions.
That is not really optimal for an Enterprise file system. In my opinion the
ZFS team should focus
on bug correction
Hi Victor,
'zdb -e -bcsv -t 2435913 tank' ran for about a week with no output. We had yet
another brown out and then the comp shut down (have a UPS on the way). A few
days before that I started the following commands, which also had no output:
zdb -e -bcsv -t 2435911 tank
zdb -e -bcsv -t
31 matches
Mail list logo
