Re: [zfs-discuss] Archiving and Restoring Snapshots

I agree, mailing that to all Sun customers is something I think is likely to turn around and bite you. A lot of people are now going to use that to archive their data, and some of them are not going to be happy when months or years down the line they try to restore it and find that the 'zfs rec

Re: [zfs-discuss] 7110: Would it self upgrade the system zpool?

Hi Trevor, We intentionally install the system pool with an old ZFS version and don't provide the ability to upgrade. We don't need or use (or even expose) any of the features of the newer versions so using a newer version would only create problems rolling back to earlier releases. Adam

Re: [zfs-discuss] 7110: Would it self upgrade the system zpool?

On 09/02/09 19:22, Tim Cook wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Trevor Pretty > wrote: Just Curious The 7110 I've on loan has an old zpool. I *assume* because it's been upgraded and it gives me the ability to downgrade. Anybody know if I

Re: [zfs-discuss] 7110: Would it self upgrade the system zpool?

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Trevor Pretty wrote: > Just Curious > > The 7110 I've on loan has an old zpool. I *assume* because it's been > upgraded and it gives me the ability to downgrade. Anybody know if I delete > the old version of Amber Road whether the pool would then upgrade (I don

[zfs-discuss] 7110: Would it self upgrade the system zpool?

Just Curious The 7110 I've on loan has an old zpool. I *assume* because it's been upgraded and it gives me the ability to downgrade. Anybody know if I delete the old version of Amber Road whether the pool would then upgrade (I don't want to do it as I want to show the up/downgrade feature)

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

2009/9/2 Eric Sproul : > > Adam, > Is it known approximately when this bug was introduced?  I have a system > running > snv_111 with a large raidz2 pool and I keep running into checksum errors > though > the drives are brand new.  They are 2TB drives, but the pool is only about 14% > used (~250G/

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

On Sep 2, 2009, at 19:45, Michael Shadle wrote: Probably due to the lack of port multiplier support. Or perhaps they run software for monitoring that only works on Linux. Said support was committed only two to three weeks ago: PSARC/2009/394 SATA Framework Port Multiplier Support 6422924 sa

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

Probably due to the lack of port multiplier support. Or perhaps they run software for monitoring that only works on Linux. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 2, 2009, at 4:33 PM, Trevor Pretty wrote: Overall, the product is what it is. There is nothing wrong with it in the right situation

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

Overall, the product is what it is. There is nothing wrong with it in the right situation although they have trimmed some corners that I wouldn't have trimmed in their place. However, comparing it to a NetAPP or an EMC is to grossly misrepresent the market. I don't think that is w

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Frank Middleton wrote: > On 09/02/09 02:17 PM, Jeff Victor wrote: > > Just to expand on that: there are now three levels of testing (and >> therefore stability) in [Open]Solaris: >> * Nevada builds - I don't know the details, but it's what BobF referred >> to with

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool scrub started resilver, not scrub (DTL non-empty?)

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 02:40:54PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 02:33:39AM -0500, Albert Chin wrote: > > # cat /etc/release > > Solaris Express Community Edition snv_105 X86 > >Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

Unless you have two or three or nine of these things and you spread data around. For the $ 1M that they claim a petabyte from Sun costs, they're able to make nine of their pods. It is the claim of the cost from Sun that I am sceptical about. I admit that it will be more expensive, and I kno

Re: [zfs-discuss] Archiving and Restoring Snapshots

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > Thanks Cindy! > > Mike, et.al., > I think the confusion is surrounding replacing an enterprise backup > scheme with send-to-file. There is nothing wrong with send-to-file, > it functions as designed.  But it isn't designed to be a full-feature

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

On Sep 2, 2009, at 15:14, Bill Moore wrote: And I'd re-iterate what myself and others have observed about SiI and silent data corruption over the years. Most of your data, most of the time, it would seem. Unless you have two or three or nine of these things and you spread data around. For t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

On Sep 2, 2009, at 14:48, C. Bergström wrote: o Goebbels wrote: As some Sun folks pointed out 1) No redundancy at the power or networking side 2) Getting 2TB drives in a x4540 would make the numbers closer 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they might not ne

Re: [zfs-discuss] Archiving and Restoring Snapshots

Thanks Cindy! Mike, et.al., I think the confusion is surrounding replacing an enterprise backup scheme with send-to-file. There is nothing wrong with send-to-file, it functions as designed. But it isn't designed to be a full-featured backup solution. IMHO, the title, "Archiving and Restoring Sna

Re: [zfs-discuss] Archiving and Restoring Snapshots

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:06 PM, wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I reviewed this doc and the only issue I have with it now is that uses > /var/tmp an an example of storing snapshots in "long-term storage" > elsewhere. One other point comes from zfs(1M): The format of the stream is evolving. No bac

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

Hey Bob, > I have seen few people more prone to unsubstantiated conjecture than you. > The raidz checksum code was recently reworked to add raidz3. It seems > likely that a subtle bug was added at that time. That appears to be the case. I'm investigating the problem and hope to have and update

Re: [zfs-discuss] Expanding a raidz pool?

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:44:40 PDT, rarok wrote: > Blake wrote: > > Have you looked at the 'add' section of the zpool > > manpage? You can add another vdev, provided it > > provides similar parity, something like: > > > > zpool add data raidz2 c4t14d0 c4t15d0 c5t12d0 c5t13d0 c5t14d0 > > > > wh

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Frank Middleton wrote: OK, I stand corrected. So the new snv121 checksum bug somehow made it through the "simple sanity checks". Based on this thread, I wonder if it is still doing so (my intuition is that the problem still doesn't show up on Sun hardware). No doubt there's s

Re: [zfs-discuss] Archiving and Restoring Snapshots

Hi Mike, I reviewed this doc and the only issue I have with it now is that uses /var/tmp an an example of storing snapshots in "long-term storage" elsewhere. For short-term storage, storing a snapshot as a file is an acceptable solution as long as you verify that the snapshots as files are valid

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

On 09/02/09 02:17 PM, Jeff Victor wrote: Just to expand on that: there are now three levels of testing (and therefore stability) in [Open]Solaris: * Nevada builds - I don't know the details, but it's what BobF referred to with "simple sanity checks" and, I think, what he meant by "OpenSolaris us

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:54 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: Torrey McMahon wrote: 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they might not need it. Would you be able to qualify this assertion? Thinking through it a bit, even if the disks are better than average and can

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:12 PM, Roland Rambau wrote: > Jacob, > > Jacob Ritorto schrieb: >> >> Torrey McMahon wrote: >> >>> 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they >>> might not need it. >> >> >> Would you be able to qualify this assertion?  Thinking through it a b

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

Jacob, Jacob Ritorto schrieb: Torrey McMahon wrote: 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they might not need it. Would you be able to qualify this assertion? Thinking through it a bit, even if the disks are better than average and can achieve 1000Mb/s each,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 02:54:42PM -0400, Jacob Ritorto wrote: > Torrey McMahon wrote: > >> 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design >> but...they might not need it. > > > Would you be able to qualify this assertion? Thinking through it a bit, > even if the disks are better

Re: [zfs-discuss] Expanding a raidz pool?

rarok wrote: I'm just a casual at ZFS but you want something that now don't exists. The most of the consumers want this but Sun is not interested in that market. To grow a existing RAIDZ just adding more disk to the RAIDZ would be great but at this moment there isn't anything like that. Can

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

IMHO it depends on the usage model. Mine is for home storage. A couple HD streams at most. 40mB/sec over a gigabit network switch is pretty good with me. On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: > Torrey McMahon wrote: > >> 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

Torrey McMahon wrote: 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they might not need it. Would you be able to qualify this assertion? Thinking through it a bit, even if the disks are better than average and can achieve 1000Mb/s each, each uplink from the multiplier

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

Mario Goebbels wrote: As some Sun folks pointed out 1) No redundancy at the power or networking side 2) Getting 2TB drives in a x4540 would make the numbers closer 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they might not need it. 4) Silicon Image chipsets. Their SATA

[zfs-discuss] Archiving and Restoring Snapshots

I just received a special offer from Sun (marketing...) promising that I will learn "How to use ZFS snapshots for backup and restore purposes." The relevant doc is at... https://www.sun.com/offers/docs/zfs_snapshots.pdf It says: === Begin quote === Archiving and Restoring Snapshots Another use

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

As some Sun folks pointed out 1) No redundancy at the power or networking side 2) Getting 2TB drives in a x4540 would make the numbers closer 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they might not need it. 4) Silicon Image chipsets. Their SATA controller chips used o

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

As some Sun folks pointed out 1) No redundancy at the power or networking side 2) Getting 2TB drives in a x4540 would make the numbers closer 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they might not need it. On 9/2/2009 2:13 PM, Michael Shadle wrote: Yeah I wrote the

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Frank Middleton wrote: On 09/02/09 12:31 PM, Richard Elling wrote: I believe this is a different problem. Adam, was this introduced in b120? Doubtless you are correct as usual. However, if this is a new problem, how did it get through Sun's legendary

Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

Yeah I wrote them about it. I said they should sell them and even better pair it with their offsite backup service kind of like a massive appliance and service option. They're not selling them but did encourage me to just make a copy of it. It looks like the only questionable piece in it is

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Frank Middleton wrote: On 09/02/09 12:31 PM, Richard Elling wrote: I believe this is a different problem. Adam, was this introduced in b120? Doubtless you are correct as usual. However, if this is a new problem, how did it get through Sun's legendary testing process unles

Re: [zfs-discuss] check a zfs rcvd file

Dick Hoogendijk wrote: Some time ago there was some discussion on zfs send | rcvd TO A FILE. Apart form the disadvantages which I now know someone mentioned a CHECK to be at least sure that the file itself was OK (without one or more bits that felt over). I lost this reply and would love to he

Re: [zfs-discuss] check a zfs rcvd file

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009, Will Murnane wrote: "zfs recv -vn < file" will check the integrity of the zfs stream in file. However, this is only a one-time check; if the data is corrupted later the stream will not be recoverable. You might consider using something like par2 [1] to generate parity: Th

Re: [zfs-discuss] Expanding a raidz pool?

At least for me, I don't use backups If I have 4x 1 TB disks in RAIDZ it means that I would need to spent at least 300€ prior to add just a 100€ disk. And about USB drives... they are even expensive, because they have the hard disk and also the adapter for USB. I'm just a home user with many dat

[zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog

Interesting blog: http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/ Regards, -- Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc,Plano,TX a...@logical-approach.com Voice: 972.379.2133 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

hey richard, so i just got a bunch of zfs checksum errors after replacing some mirrored disks on my desktop (u27). i originally blamed the new disks, until i saw this thread, at which point i started digging in bugster. i found the following related bugs (i'm not sure which one adam was refering

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

On 09/02/09 12:31 PM, Richard Elling wrote: I believe this is a different problem. Adam, was this introduced in b120? Doubtless you are correct as usual. However, if this is a new problem, how did it get through Sun's legendary testing process unless it is (as you have always maintained) trigg

Re: [zfs-discuss] Expanding a raidz pool?

With that you add another raidz to the pool but you don't enlarge the zpool. I think that the word is that you can't change the geometry of a created raidz -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.

Re: [zfs-discuss] check a zfs rcvd file

"zfs recv -vn < file" will check the integrity of the zfs stream in file. However, this is only a one-time check; if the data is corrupted later the stream will not be recoverable. You might consider using something like par2 [1] to generate parity: while true: zfs send f...@snap > file gener

Re: [zfs-discuss] Expanding a raidz pool?

On Sep 2, 2009, at 7:14 PM, rarok wrote: I'm just a casual at ZFS but you want something that now don't exists. The most of the consumers want this but Sun is not interested in that market. To grow a existing RAIDZ just adding more disk to the RAIDZ would be great but at this moment there isn'

[zfs-discuss] check a zfs rcvd file

Some time ago there was some discussion on zfs send | rcvd TO A FILE. Apart form the disadvantages which I now know someone mentioned a CHECK to be at least sure that the file itself was OK (without one or more bits that felt over). I lost this reply and would love to hear this check again.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Expanding a raidz pool?

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Ty Newton wrote: > Hi, > I've read a few articles about the lack of 'simple' raidz pool expansion > capability in ZFS.  I am interested in having a go at developing this > functionality.  Is anyone working on this at the moment? > > I'll explain what I am proposi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Expanding a raidz pool?

Sorry, I'm not english native and sometimes I don't find the correct words for explaining some things. But yes I'm a costumer, I'm running a NAS with a intel atom and opensolaris with a RAIDZ, but it's a pain that I can't expand it just adding another disk. -- This message posted from opensolar

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

And in addition to which solaris version people are using, is it relevant which ZFS level their pool is using? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Expanding a raidz pool?

On Sep 2, 2009, at 7:14 PM, rarok wrote: I'm just a casual at ZFS but you want something that now don't exists. The most of the consumers want this but Sun is not interested in that market. To grow a existing RAIDZ just adding more disk to the RAIDZ would be great but at this moment there i

Re: [zfs-discuss] Expanding a raidz pool?

I'm just a casual at ZFS but you want something that now don't exists. The most of the consumers want this but Sun is not interested in that market. To grow a existing RAIDZ just adding more disk to the RAIDZ would be great but at this moment there isn't anything like that. -- This message post

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

Hello all, I have backed down to snv_117, when scrubbing this pool i got my first checksum errors ever on any build except snv_121. I wonder if this is a coincidence or if bad checksums have been generated by snv_121? So i have been running for 10 months without any checksum errors, i ins

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

Hi Richard, I just took at that link and it only mentions problems with RAID-Z vdevs, but some people here, including myself, have checksum errors with mirrors too, so maybe the link could be updated with this info? Cheers, Simon -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

On Sep 2, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Frank Middleton wrote: On 09/02/09 05:40 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote: For those of us which have already upgraded and written data to our raidz pools, are there any risks of inconsistency, wrong checksums in the pool? Is there a bug id? This may not be a new proble

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

On Sep 2, 2009, at 2:38 AM, Daniel Carosone wrote: Furthermore, this clarity needs to be posted somewhere much, much more visible than buried in some discussion thread. I've added a note in the ZFS Troubleshooting Guide wiki. However, I could not find a public CR. If someone inside Sun ca

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Frank Middleton wrote: > On 09/02/09 05:40 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote: > >> For those of us which have already upgraded and written data to our >> raidz pools, are there any risks of inconsistency, wrong checksums in >> the pool? Is there a bug id? > > This may not b

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

Cheers Frank, I'll give it a try... also, doesn't sound good if the problem goes back pre snv_100... -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-di

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

Thanks Markus, I'll give that a try. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Poor iSCSI performance [SEC=PERSONAL]

Unlike NFS which can issue sync writes and async writes, iscsi needs to be serviced with synchronous semantics (unless the write caching is enabled, caveat emptor). If the workloads issuing the iscsi request is single threaded, then performance is governed by I/O size over rotational latenc

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

On 09/02/09 10:34 AM, Simon Breden wrote: I too see checksum errors ocurring for the first time using OpenSolaris 2009.06 on the /dev package repository at version snv_121. I see the problem occur within a mirrored boot pool (rpool) using SSDs. Hardware is AMD BE-2350 (ECC) processor with 4GB

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

Please see iostat -xen if there is transport or hw errors generated by say, device timeouts or bad cables etc. Consumer disks usually just timeout time to time while on load when RE-versions usually report error. Yours Markus Kovero -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolar

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

I too see checksum errors ocurring for the first time using OpenSolaris 2009.06 on the /dev package repository at version snv_121. I see the problem occur within a mirrored boot pool (rpool) using SSDs. Hardware is AMD BE-2350 (ECC) processor with 4GB ECC memory on MCP55 chipset, although SATA

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

On 09/02/09 10:01 AM, Gaëtan Lehmann wrote: I see the same problem on a workstation with ECC RAM and disks in mirror. The host is a Dell T5500 with 2 cpus and 24 GB of RAM. Would you know if it has ECC on the buses? I have no idea if or what Solaris does on X86 to check or correct bus errors,

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

Adam Leventhal wrote: > Hi James, > > After investigating this problem a bit I'd suggest avoiding deploying > RAID-Z > until this issue is resolved. I anticipate having it fixed in build 124. Adam, Is it known approximately when this bug was introduced? I have a system running snv_111 with a lar

Re: [zfs-discuss] "high speed" at 7,200 rpm

casper@sun.com wrote: > Most of the "Intellispeed" drives are just 5400rpm; I suppose that this > drive can deliver 150MB/s on sequential access. I have the earlier generation of the 2TB WD RE4 drive in one of my systems. With Bonwick's diskqual script I saw an average of 119 MB/s across 14 d

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

Le 2 sept. 09 à 15:27, Frank Middleton a écrit : On 09/02/09 05:40 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote: For those of us which have already upgraded and written data to our raidz pools, are there any risks of inconsistency, wrong checksums in the pool? Is there a bug id? This may not be a new problem

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

On 09/02/09 05:40 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote: For those of us which have already upgraded and written data to our raidz pools, are there any risks of inconsistency, wrong checksums in the pool? Is there a bug id? This may not be a new problem insofar as it may also affect mirrors. As part of t

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

Hi Adam, On Sep 2, 2009, at 1:54 AM, Adam Leventhal wrote: Hi James, After investigating this problem a bit I'd suggest avoiding deploying RAID-Z until this issue is resolved. I anticipate having it fixed in build 124. For those of us which have already upgraded and written data to our

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

Furthermore, this clarity needs to be posted somewhere much, much more visible than buried in some discussion thread. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailma

Re: [zfs-discuss] snv_110 -> snv_121 produces checksum errors on Raid-Z pool

Adam The 'OpenSolaris Development Release Packaging Repository' has recently been updated to release 121. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-announce/2009-August/001253.html http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev/en/index.shtml Just to be totally clear, as you recommending that anyone

Re: [zfs-discuss] order bug, legacy mount and nfs sharing

> sorry I did'nt explain in detail. > have you set again zfs set mountpoint? > if you still set your mountpoint 'legacy' ,you have > to change zfs set > mountpoint=$MOUNTPOINT your_pool_mounted_/pathname > and then zfs set sharenfs=on Hi, but if set mountpoint different from legacy I hit the mou

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs performance cliff when over 80% util, still occuring when pool in 6

No joy. c1t0d0 89 MB/sec c1t1d0 89 MB/sec c2t0d0 123 MB/sec c2t1d0 123 MB/sec First two are the rpool -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-

[zfs-discuss] zfs send /@ incomplete

I have been doing some tests with ZFS with volumes shared through iSCSI and connected to a windows machine. I created several snapshots and cloned several of them to attach and test. My zfs list and zfs list -t snapshot looks like this at the moment (only relevant parts): datapool

Re: [zfs-discuss] "high speed" at 7,200 rpm

>FYI, >Western Digital shipping high-speed 2TB hard drive >http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10322886-1.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0 > >I'm not sure how many people think 7,200 rpm is "high speed" >but, hey, it is better than 5,900 rpm :-) Most of the "Intellispeed" drives are just 5400rpm;