on that below :)
2012-05-18 15:30, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 03:05:09AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
While waiting for that resilver to complete last week,
I caught myself wondering how the resilvers (are supposed
to) work in ZFS?
The devil finds work for idle hands
2012-05-18 19:08, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
I'm reading the ZFS on-disk spec, and I get the idea that there's an
uberblock pointing to a self-balancing tree (some say b-tree, some say
with no
deletions so far is oh-so-good! ;)
2012-05-17 1:21, Jim Klimov wrote:
2012-05-15 19:17, casper@oracle.com wrote:
Your old release of Solaris (nearly three years old) doesn't support
disks over 2TB, I would think.
(A 3TB is 3E12, the 2TB limit is 2^41 and the difference is around 800Gb
New question: if the snv_117 does see the 3Tb disks well,
the matter of upgrading the OS becomes not so urgent - we
might prefer to delay that until the next stable release
of OpenIndiana or so.
Now that I think of it, when was raidz3 introduced?..
I don't see it in the zpool manpage as of SXCE
2012-05-18 1:39, Jim Klimov написал:
A small follow-up on my tests, just in case readers are
interested in some numbers: the UltraStar 3Tb disk got
filled up by a semi-random selection of data from our old
pool in 24 hours sharp
One more number: the smaller pool completed its scrub in
57
Hello all,
While waiting for that resilver to complete last week,
I caught myself wondering how the resilvers (are supposed
to) work in ZFS?
Based on what I see in practice and read in this list
and some blogs, I've built a picture and would be grateful
if some experts actually familiar
2012-05-16 6:18, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
You forgot IDEA #6 where you take advantage of the fact that zfs can be
told to use sparse files as partitions. This is rather like your IDEA #3
but does not require that disks be partitioned.
This is somewhat the method of making missing devices when
2012-05-16 13:30, Joerg Schilling написал:
Jim Klimovjimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
We know that large redundancy is highly recommended for
big HDDs, so in-place autoexpansion of the raidz1 pool
onto 3Tb disks is out of the question.
Before I started to use my thumper, I reconfigured it to use
Hello fellow BOFH,
I also went by that title in a previous life ;)
2012-05-16 21:58, bofh wrote:
Err, why go to all that trouble? Replace one disk per pool. Wait for
resilver to finish. Replace next disk. Once all/enough disks have
been replaced, turn on autoexpand, and you're done.
As
2012-05-16 22:21, bofh wrote:
There's something going on then. I have 7x 3TB disk at home, in
raidz3, so about 12TB usable. 2.5TB actually used. Scrubbing takes
about 2.5 hours. I had done the resilvering as well, and that did not
take 15 hours/drive.
That is the critical moment ;)
The
2012-05-15 19:17, casper@oracle.com wrote:
Your old release of Solaris (nearly three years old) doesn't support
disks over 2TB, I would think.
(A 3TB is 3E12, the 2TB limit is 2^41 and the difference is around 800Gb)
While this was proven correct by my initial experiments,
it seems that
Hello all, I'd like some practical advice on migration of a
Sun Fire X4500 (Thumper) from aging data disks to a set of
newer disks. Some questions below are my own, others are
passed from the customer and I may consider not all of them
sane - but must ask anyway ;)
1) They hope to use 3Tb disks,
, check! ;}
2012-05-15 13:41, Jim Klimov wrote:
Hello all, I'd like some practical advice on migration of a
Sun Fire X4500 (Thumper) from aging data disks to a set of
newer disks. Some questions below are my own, others are
passed from the customer and I may consider not all of them
sane - but must ask
2012-05-11 14:22, Jim Klimov wrote:
What conditions can cause the reset of the resilvering
process? My lost-and-found disk can't get back into the
pool because of resilvers restarting...
FOLLOW-UP AND NEW QUESTIONS
Here is a new piece of evidence - I've finally got something
out of fmdump
2012-05-12 15:52, Jim Klimov wrote:
2012-05-11 14:22, Jim Klimov wrote:
What conditions can cause the reset of the resilvering
process? My lost-and-found disk can't get back into the
pool because of resilvers restarting...
Guess I must assume that the disk is dying indeed, losing
connection
Thanks for staying tuned! ;)
2012-05-12 18:34, Richard Elling wrote:
On May 12, 2012, at 4:52 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
2012-05-11 14:22, Jim Klimov wrote:
What conditions can cause the reset of the resilvering
process? My lost-and-found disk can't get back into the
pool because of resilvers
2012-05-12 7:01, Jim Klimov wrote:
Overall the applied question is whether the disk will
make it back into the live pool (ultimately with no
continuous resilvering), and how fast that can be done -
I don't want to risk the big pool with nonredundant
arrays for too long.
Here lies another
zfs_resilver_min_time_ms/W0t2 | mdb -kw
mdb: failed to dereference symbol: unknown symbol name
Thanks for any ideas,
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
2012-05-11 17:18, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2012, Jim Klimov wrote:
Hello all,
SHORT VERSION:
What conditions can cause the reset of the resilvering
process? My lost-and-found disk can't get back into the
pool because of resilvers restarting...
I recall that with sufficiently
2012-05-11 17:18, Bob Friesenhahn написал:
On Fri, 11 May 2012, Jim Klimov wrote:
Hello all,
SHORT VERSION:
What conditions can cause the reset of the resilvering
process? My lost-and-found disk can't get back into the
pool because of resilvers restarting...
I recall that with sufficiently
2012-05-12 5:50, Robert Milkowski wrote:
What conditions can cause the reset of the resilvering process? My
lost-and-found disk can't get back into the pool because of resilvers
restarting...
Well, for the night I rebooted the machine into single-user mode, to rule out
zones, crontabs and
2012-05-12 4:26, Jim Klimov wrote:
Wonder if things would get better or worse if I kick one of the
drives (i.e. hotspare c5t6d0) out of the equation:
raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0
c0t1d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
spare ONLINE 0 0 0
c1t2d0 ONLINE 0 0 0 6.72G resilvered
c5t6d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c4t3d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
c6t5d0
2012-05-07 20:45, Karl Rossing цкщеу:
I'm wondering why the zfs send could be so slow. Could the other server
be slowing down the sas bus?
I hope other posters would have more relevant suggestions, but
you can see if the buses are contended by dd'ing from the drives.
At least that would give
2012-05-03 9:44, Jordi Espasa Clofent wrote:
Note, as you can see, the slice 0 i used for 'rpool' and the slice 7
is used for 'opt'. The autoexpand propierty is enabled in 'rpool' but
is disabled in 'opt'
This machine is a virtual one (VMware), so I can enlarge the disk
easily if I need.
2012-05-03 3:07, Fred Liu wrote:
There is no specific problem to resolve. Just want to get sort of accurate
equation between
the raw storage size and the usable storage size although the *meta file*
size is trivial.
If you do mass storage budget, this equation is meaningful.
I don't think
On 2012-04-26 2:20, Ian Collins wrote:
On 04/26/12 09:54 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, Rich Teer wrote:
Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but in this scenario, what would
prevent
one from having, on a single file server, /exports/nodes/node[0-15],
and then
having each node
On 2012-04-26 14:47, Ian Collins wrote:
I don't think it even made it into Solaris 10.
Actually, I see the kernel modules available in both Solaris 10,
several builds of OpenSolaris SXCE and an illumos-current.
$ find /kernel/ /platform/ /usr/platform/ /usr/kernel/ | grep -i cachefs
On 2012-04-26 11:27, Fred Liu wrote:
“zfs 'userused@' properties” and “'zfs userspace' command” are good
enough to gather usage statistics.
...
Since no one is focusing on enabling default user/group quota now, the
temporarily remedy could be a script which traverse all the users/groups
in the
On 2012-04-24 19:14, Tim Cook wrote:
Personally unless the dataset is huge and you're using z3, I'd be
scrubbing once a week. Even if it's z3, just do a window on Sunday's or
something so that you at least make it through the whole dataset at
least once a month.
+1 I guess
Among other
2012-04-23 9:35, Daniel Carosone wrote:
I'll try to leave all 6 original disks in the machine while replacing,
maybe zfs will be smart enough to use the 6 drives to build the replacement
disk ?
I don't think it will.. others who know the code, feel free to comment
otherwise.
Well, I've heard
2012-04-18 6:57, David E. wrote:
Now, make your zpool, and start playing:
$ sudo zpool create test raidz sdd sde sdf sdg sdh sdi
It is stable enough to run a ZFS root filesystem on a GNU/Linux
installation for your workstation as something to play around with. It
is copy-on-write, supports
2012-04-18 18:54, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
Hmmm, how come they have encryption and we don't?
As in Solaris releases, or some other we?
With all due respect, I did not mean to start a flame war, so
I'll frantically try to stomp out the sparks ;)
Still, this is a zfs discuss list at
2012-04-17 5:15, Richard Elling wrote:
For the archives...
Write-back cache enablement is toxic for file systems that do not issue
cache flush commands, such as Solaris' UFS. In the early days of ZFS,
on Solaris 10 or before ZFS was bootable on OpenSolaris, it was not
uncommon to have ZFS and
2012-04-17 14:47, Matt Keenan wrote:
- or is it possible that one of the devices being a USB device is
causing the failure ? I don't know.
Might be, I've got little experience with those beside LiveUSB
imagery ;)
My reason for splitting the pool was so I could attach the clean USB
rpool to
2012-04-08 6:06, Richard Elling wrote:
You can't get past the age-old idiom: you get what you pay for.
True... but it can be somewhat countered with DrHouse-age idiom:
people lie, even if they don't mean to ;)
Rhetoric foolows ;)
Hardware breaks sooner or later, due to poor design, brownian
I'm not familiar with the J4400 at all, but isn't Sun/Oracle using -like NetAPP-
Interposer cards and thus handling the SATA drives more or less like SAS ones?
Out of curiosity, are there any third-party hardware vendors
that make server/storage chassis (Supermicro et al) who make
SATA
2012-04-04 23:27, Jan-Aage Frydenbø-Bruvoll wrote:
Which OS and release?
This is OpenIndiana oi_148, ZFS pool version 28.
There was a bug in some releases circa 2010 that you might be hitting. It is
harmless, but annoying.
Ok - what bug is this, how do I verify whether I am facing it here
2012-04-05 16:04, Jim Klimov написал:
2012-04-04 23:27, Jan-Aage Frydenbø-Bruvoll wrote:
Which OS and release?
This is OpenIndiana oi_148, ZFS pool version 28.
There was a bug in some releases circa 2010 that you might be
hitting. It is
harmless, but annoying.
Ok - what bug is this, how
2012-03-27 11:14, Carsten John write:
I saw a similar effect some time ago on a opensolaris box (build 111b). That
time my final solution was to copy over the read only mounted stuff to a newly
created pool. As it is the second time this failure occures (on different
machines) I'm really
heard that VMWare has some smallish limit on the number
of NFS connections, but 30 should be bearable...
HTH,
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
2012-03-26 14:27, Aubrey Li wrote:
The php temporary folder is set to /tmp, which is tmpfs.
By the way, how much RAM does the box have available?
tmpfs in Solaris is backed by virtual memory.
It is like a RAM disk, although maybe slower than ramdisk
FS as seen in livecd, as long as there is
As a random guess, try pointing PHP tmp directory to
/var/tmp (backed by zfs) and see if any behaviors change?
Good luck,
//Jim
Thanks for your suggestions. Actually the default PHP tmp directory
was /var/tmp, and I changed /var/tmp to /tmp. This reduced zfs
root lock contention
2012-03-24 2:02, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012, The Honorable Senator and Mrs. John Blutarsky wrote:
Obtaining an approved system seems very difficult.
Because of the list being out of date and so the systems are no longer
available, or because systems available now don't show
2012-03-21 22:53, Richard Elling wrote:
...
This is why a single
vdev's random-read performance is equivalent to the random-read
performance of
a single drive.
It is not as bad as that. The actual worst case number for a HDD with
zfs_vdev_max_pending
of one is:
average IOPS * ((D+P) / D)
2012-03-22 20:52, Richard Elling wrote:
Yes, but it is a rare case for 512b sectors.
It could be more common for 4KB sector disks when ashift=12.
...
Were there any research or tests regarding storage of many small
files (1-sector sized or close to that) on different vdev layouts?
It is not
should consider? Thanks for
any help.
Again, I hope someone else would correctly suggest the setup
for your numbers. I'm somewhat more successful with theory now ;(
HTH,
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
2012-03-21 16:41, Paul Kraus wrote:
I have been running ZFS in a mission critical application since
zpool version 10 and have not seen any issues with some of the vdevs
in a zpool full while others are virtually empty. We have been running
commercial Solaris 10 releases. The configuration
2012-03-21 17:28, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of MLR
...
Am I correct in thinking this means, for example, I have a single
14 disk raidz2 vdev zpool,
It's not advisable to put more than ~8 disks
2012-03-21 21:40, Marion Hakanson цкщеу:
Small, random read performance does not scale with the number of drives in each
raidz[123] vdev because of the dynamic striping. In order to read a single
logical block, ZFS has to read all the segments of that logical block, which
have been spread out
2012-03-18 23:47, Richard Elling wrote:
...
Yes, it is wrong to think that.
Ok, thanks, we won't try that :)
copy out, copy in. Whether this is easy or not depends on how well
you plan your storage use ...
Home users and personal budgets do tend to have a problem
with planning. Any
Hello, while browsing around today I stumbled across
Seagate Pipeline HD HDDs lineup (i.e. ST2000VM002).
Did any ZFS users have any experience with them?
http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/consumer_electronics/pipeline/
Hello all,
I was asked if it is possible to convert a ZFS pool created
explicitly with ashift=12 (via the tweaked binary) and filled
with data back into ashift=9 so as to use the slack space
from small blocks (BP's, file tails, etc.)
The user's HDD marketing text says that it efficiently
2012-03-14 13:57, Svavar Örn Eysteinsson wrote:
Hello.
I can't seem to find any good info about this case.
I'm running OpenIndiana 151 and have some files on a ZFS folder (located
under /datapool/stuff).
I'm in the need to create a new ZFS folder (/datapool/temp) and move
some files from
2012-03-14 16:38, Paul Kraus wrote:
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Svavar Örn Eysteinssonsva...@fiton.is wrote:
I'm running OpenIndiana 151 and have some files on a ZFS folder (located
under /datapool/stuff).
I'm in the need to create a new ZFS folder (/datapool/temp) and move some
files
2012-03-13 16:52, Hung-Sheng Tsao (LaoTsao) Ph.D wrote:
hi
are the disk/sas controller the same on both server?
Seemingly no. I don't see the output of format on Server2,
but for Server1 I see that the 3TB disks are used as IDE
devices (probably with motherboard SATA-IDE emulation?)
while on
VM takes a few days. I did check that the /sbin/zfs
binary from original oi_151a works as expected with the same
kernel/libs that I've built. Tested on two different pools.
Just my 2c about a possible regresion in the bleeding-edge code.
Posting a bug to tracker as well...
HTH,
//Jim Klimov
2012-03-09 9:24, Ian Collins wrote:
I sent the snapshot to a file, coped the file to the remote host and
piped the file into zfs receive. That worked and I was able to send
further snapshots with ssh.
Odd.
Is it possible that in case of zfs send ... | ssh | zfs recv
piping, the two ZFS
2012-03-07 17:21, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of luis Johnstone
As far as I can tell, the Hitachi Deskstar 7K3000 (HDS723030ALA640) uses
512B
sectors and so I presume does not suffer from such
2012-02-29 21:15, Mark Wolek wrote:
Running Solaris 11 with ZFS and the VM’s on this storage can only be
opened and run on 1 ESX host, if I move the files to another host I get
access denied, even though root has full permissions to the files.
Any ideas or does it ring any bells for anyone
2012-02-09 22:43, Jim Klimov пишет:
2012-02-04 18:27, Jim Klimov wrote:
panicstr = BAD TRAP: type=e (#pf Page fault) rp=ff0010a5e920
addr=30 occurred in module zfs due to a NULL pointer dereference
panicstack = unix:die+dd () | unix:trap+1799 () | unix:cmntrap+e6
() | zfs:ddt_phys_decref+c
2012-02-16 14:57, Olaf Seibert wrote:
On Wed 15 Feb 2012 at 14:49:14 +0100, Olaf Seibert wrote:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
tank FAULTED 0 0 2
raidz2-0 DEGRADED 0 0 8
da0
2012-02-04 18:27, Jim Klimov wrote:
panicstr = BAD TRAP: type=e (#pf Page fault) rp=ff0010a5e920
addr=30 occurred in module zfs due to a NULL pointer dereference
panicstack = unix:die+dd () | unix:trap+1799 () | unix:cmntrap+e6
() | zfs:ddt_phys_decref+c () | zfs:zio_ddt_free+5c
rollbacks until required to...
Thanks,
//Jim
2012-02-04 4:28, Jim Klimov wrote:
I got the machine with my 6-disk raidz2 pool booted again,
into oi_151a, but it reboots soon after importing the pool.
Kernel hits a NULL pointer dereference in DDT-related
routines and crashes.
According to fmdump, error
2012-02-01 6:22, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
That is almost what I do, except that I only have one HBA.
We haven't seen many HBAs fail during the years, none actually, so we
thought it was overkill to double those too. But maybe we are wrong?
Question: if you use two HBAs on different PCI buses to
, :)
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
2012-01-24 13:05, Mickaël CANÉVET wrote:
Hi,
Unless I misunderstood something, zfs send of a volume that has
compression activated, uncompress it. So if I do a zfs send|zfs receive
from a compressed volume to a compressed volume, my data are
uncompressed and compressed again. Right ?
Is there
RAM or overheated CPUs, power surges from PSU...
There is a lot of stuff that can break :)
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
2012-01-24 19:52, Jim Klimov wrote:
2012-01-24 13:05, Mickaël CANÉVET wrote:
Hi,
Unless I misunderstood something, zfs send of a volume that has
compression activated, uncompress it. So if I do a zfs send|zfs receive
from a compressed volume to a compressed volume, my data are
uncompressed
2012-01-22 22:58, Richard Elling wrote:
On Jan 21, 2012, at 6:32 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
... So it currently seems to me, that:
1) My on-disk data could get corrupted for whatever reason
ZFS tries to protect it from, at least once probably
from misdirected writes (i.e. the head landed
2012-01-23 18:25, Jim Klimov wrote:
4) I did not get to check whether dedup=verify triggers a
checksum mismatch alarm if the preexisting on-disk data
does not in fact match the checksum.
All checksum mismatches are handled the same way.
I have yet to test (to be certain) whether writing
2012-01-21 0:33, Jim Klimov wrote:
2012-01-13 4:12, Jim Klimov wrote:
As I recently wrote, my data pool has experienced some
unrecoverable errors. It seems that a userdata block
of deduped data got corrupted and no longer matches the
stored checksum. For whatever reason, raidz2 did not
help
2012-01-21 19:18, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2012, Jim Klimov wrote:
5) It seems like a worthy RFE to include a pool-wide option to
verify-after-write/commit - to test that recent TXG sync
data has indeed made it to disk on (consumer-grade) hardware
into the designated sector
2012-01-21 20:50, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
TXGs get forgotten from memory as soon as they are written.
As I said, that can be arranged - i.e. free the TXG cache
after the corresponding TXG number has been verified?
Point about ARC being overwritten seems valid...
Zfs already knows how to
2012-01-22 0:55, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012, Jim Klimov wrote:
So far I rather considered flaky hardware with lousy
consumer qualities. The server you describe is likely
to exceed that bar ;)
The most common flaky behavior of consumer hardware which causes
troubles for zfs
2012-01-13 4:12, Jim Klimov wrote:
As I recently wrote, my data pool has experienced some
unrecoverable errors. It seems that a userdata block
of deduped data got corrupted and no longer matches the
stored checksum. For whatever reason, raidz2 did not
help in recovery of this data, so I rsync'ed
2012-01-18 20:36, Nico Williams wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:53 AM, Jim Klimovjimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
2012-01-18 1:20, Stefan Ring wrote:
I don’t care too much if a single document gets corrupted – there’ll
always be a good copy in a snapshot. I do care however if a whole
directory branch
2012-01-18 1:20, Stefan Ring wrote:
The issue is definitely not specific to ZFS. For example, the whole OS
depends on relable memory content in order to function. Likewise, no one
likes it if characters mysteriously change in their word processing
documents.
I don’t care too much if a single
of ZFS be the
highest quality possible. I'd like to think that we all try to achieve
that to the extent that it is possible within our corporate priorities.
Thank you for shedding some light of hope. ;)
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs
2012-01-17 16:17, casper@oracle.com пишет:
I have a desktop system with 2 ZFS mirrors. One drive in one mirror is
starting to produce read errors and slowing things down dramatically. I
detached it and the system is running fine. I can't tell which drive it is
though! The error message
to cache file:
# zpool import -R /RPOOL-BACKUP -f 12076177533503245216 rpool-backup
Hope these tips help you,
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
segment line in the end, does it
mean that it was not deduplicated with any other blocks (and is
stored contiguously)?
Thanks,
//Jim Klimov
=== ZDB output samples: strange output
Dataset pool/mydata [ZPL], ID 281, cr_txg 291705, 850G, 338171 objects,
rootbp DVA[0]=0:49c1a79:3000 DVA[1]=0
Thanks again for answering! :)
2012-01-16 10:08, Richard Elling wrote:
On Jan 15, 2012, at 7:04 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot?
That's a kind of radical, possibly offensive, question formula
that I have lately.
Simple answer: no. raidz provides data
2012-01-16 8:39, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2012, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
While I'm waiting for this to run, I'll make some predictions:
The file is 2GB (16 Gbit) and the disk reads around 1Gbit/sec, so reading
the initial sequential file should take ~16 sec
After fragmentation, it
2012-01-16 23:14, Matthew Ahrens пишет:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru
mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
While reading about zfs on-disk formats, I wondered once again
why is it not possible to create a snapshot on existing data,
not of the current TXG
it as it matches the
checksum. On the good side, there is a smaller window that
data is exposed unprotected, so statistically this solution
should help.
HTH,
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman
How nested can be the VDEV tree? All the examples I've
seen suggested 3 layers - root vdev, striping over some
top-level vdevs (if present), made (redundantly) of some
physical/leaf vdevs.
In trivial cases this goes down to two levels (a root
striping over non-redundant leaf vdevs) or one
that be
wonderful for ZFS in general? :)
Thanks in advance,
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Does ZFS currently attempt to group metadata in large sector-ranges
on the disk? Can this be expected to happen automagically - i.e.
during each TXG close we have to COW-update whole branches of the
blockpointer tree, so these new blocks might just happen to always
coalesce into larger sector
2012-01-15 19:16, Edward Ned Harvey пишет:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
2) In particular, if I wanted to make a mirror of raidzN's,
can it be done in one ZFS pool, or would I have to play
with iSCSI and ZVOLs
2012-01-15 19:38, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
1) How does raidzN protect agaist bit-rot without known full
death of a component disk, if it at all does?
zfs can read disks 1,2,3,4... Then read disks 1,2,3,5...
Then read disks 1,2,4,5... ZFS can figure out which disk
returned the faulty
for the replies,
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
with the
on-wire CRC/ECC, perhaps the IDE (and maybe consumer SATA) protocols?
Thanks for replies,
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
-discuss
HTH,
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Followup: namely, the 'hostname' field should report the
host which has last (or currently) imported the pool,
and the 'name' field is the pool name as of last import
(can be changed by like zpool import pool1 testpool2).
HTH,
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs
there is popular.
Good luck, and let us know if your practice proves my
generic rant wrong! ;)
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
detail and many examples, and gave me a better
understanding of it all even though I deal with this for
several years now. A good read, I suggest it to others ;)
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
), so
corruption of the checksum would also cause replacement
of really-good-but-normally-inaccessible data.
//Jim Klimov
(Bug reported to Illumos: https://www.illumos.org/issues/1981)
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
2012-01-13 4:26, Richard Elling wrote:
On Jan 12, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
As I recently wrote, my data pool has experienced some
unrecoverable errors. It seems that a userdata block
of deduped data got corrupted and no longer matches the
stored checksum. For whatever reason, raidz2
2012-01-13 2:34, Jim Klimov wrote:
I guess I have another practical rationale for a second
checksum, be it ECC or not: my scrubbing pool found some
unrecoverable errors.
...Applications need to know whether the digest has
been changed.
As Richard reminded me in another thread, both metadata
, why not use the available knowledge
of known-good blocks to repair detected {small} errors
in large volumes of same data?
What do you think?..
//Jim Klimov
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman
201 - 300 of 540 matches
Mail list logo
