On Sun, January 8, 2012 00:28, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
> I think that I would also be interested in a system which uses the
> so-called spare disks for more protective redundancy but then reduces
> that protective redundancy in order to use that disk to replace a
> failed disk or to automatically
Hi everyone,
I have a couple of questions regarding FreeBSD's ZFS support.
Firstly, I believe it currently stands at zpool v28. Is this correct?
Will this be updated any time soon?
Also, looking at the Wikipedia page, the updates beyond this are:
29 Solaris Nevada b148 RAID-Z/mirror
On 2012-08-09 11:35, Jim Klimov wrote:
2012-08-09 13:57, Karl Wagner wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have a couple of questions regarding FreeBSD's ZFS support.
Firstly, I believe it currently stands at zpool v28. Is this
correct?
Will this be updated any time soon?
Also, looking at the Wiki
On 2012-08-24 14:39, Jim Klimov wrote:
Hello all,
The idea of dedicated metadata devices (likely SSDs) for ZFS
has been generically discussed a number of times on this list,
but I don't think I've seen a final proposal that someone would
take up for implementation (as a public source code, at
Hi Edward,
My own personal view on this is that the simplest option is the best.
In your script, create a new snapshot using one of 2 names. Let's call
them SNAPSEND_A and SNAPSEND_B. You can decide which one by checking
which currently exists.
As manual setup, on the first run, create SNAPS
Actually, I think there is a world of difference.
Backwards compatibility is something we all need. We need to be able to
access content created in previous versions of software in newer
versions.
You cannot expect an older version to be compatible with the new
features in a later version. T
I can only speak anecdotally, but I believe it does.
Watching zpool iostat it does read all data on both disks in a mirrored
pair.
Logically, it would not make sense not to verify all redundant data.
The point of a scrub is to ensure all data is correct.
On 2012-10-25 10:25, Jim Klimov wrot
Does it not store a separate checksum for a parity block? If so, it
should not even need to recalculate the parity: assuming checksums match
for all data and parity blocks, the data is good.
I could understand
why it would not store a checksum for a parity block. It is not really
necessary: Pa
On 2012-11-08 4:43, Edward Ned Harvey
(opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote:
> When I said
performance was abysmal, I meant, if you dig right down and pressure the
system for throughput to disk, you've got a Linux or Windows VM isnide
of ESX, which is writing to a virtual disk, which ES
On 2012-11-08 17:49, Edward Ned Harvey
(opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote:
>> From:
zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [1] [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org [2]] On Behalf Of Karl Wagner I am just
wondering why you export the ZFS system through NFS? I have ha
On 2012-11-13 17:42, Peter Tribble wrote:
> Given storage
provisioned off a SAN (I know, but sometimes that's
> what you have to
work with), what's the best way to expand a pool?
>
> Specifically, I
can either grow existing LUNs, a]or add new LUNs.
>
> As an example, If
I have 24x 2TB LUNs,
On 2012-11-14 12:55, dswa...@druber.com wrote:
>> On 11/14/12
15:20, Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
>>
>>> Well, I think I give up for
now. I spent quite a few hours over the last couple of days trying to
get gnome desktop working on bare-metal OI, followed by virtualbox.
Supposedly that works in
Hi all
I have had a ZFS file server for a while now. I recently
upgraded it, giving it 16GB RAM and an SSD for L2ARC. This allowed me to
evaluate dedupe on certain datasets, which worked pretty well.
The
main reason for the upgrade was that something wasn't working quite
right, and I was get
OK then, I guess my next question would be what's the best way to
"undedupe" the data I have?
Would it work for me to zfs send/receive
on the same pool (with dedup off), deleting the old datasets once they
have been 'copied'? I think I remember reading somewhere that the DDT
never shrinks, so
I have a small problem.
I have a development fileserver box running Solaris 11 Express. The Rpool
is mirrored between an SSD and a hard drive. Today, the SSD deveoped a
fault for some reason. While trying to diagnose the problem, the system
panicked and rebooted.
The SSD was the first boot drive,
Hi everyone
I am currently testing Solaris 11 Express. I currently have a root pool on a
mirrored pair of small disks, and a data pool consisting of 2 mirrored pairs
of 1.5TB drives.
I have enabled auto snapshots on my root pool, and plan to archive the daily
snapshots onto my data pool. I
Hi all
This is just an off-the-cuff idea at the moment, but I would like to sound
it out.
Consider the situation where someone has a large amount of off-site data
storage (of the order of 100s of TB or more). They have a slow network link
to this storage.
My idea is that this could be used to bu
> -Original Message-
> From: Edward Ned Harvey
> [mailto:opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com]
> Sent: 19 January 2011 01:42
> To: 'Karl Wagner'; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Subject: RE: [zfs-discuss] Request for comments: L2ARC, ZIL, RAM, an
Hi
Looks like you missed the receive
zfs send emcpool1/... | ssh 10.63.25.218 zfs receive rpool/...
Or else it was a type on the message.
Rgds
Karl
> -Original Message-
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
Hi
I am no expert, but I have used several virtualisation environments, and I
am always in favour of passing iSCSI straight through to the VM. It creates
a much more portable system, often able to be booted on a different
virtualisation environment, or even on a dedicated server, if you choose at
>From what I have read, this is not the best way to do it.
Your best bet is to create a ZFS pool using the external device (or even
better, devices) then zfs send | zfs receive. You can then do the same at
your remote location.
If you just send to a file, you may find it was a wasted trip (or pos
Hi all
I have only just seen this, and thought someone may be able to help.
On heavy IO activity, my Solaris 11 Express box hosting a ZFS data pool
crashes. It seems to show page faults in several things, including nfsd,
sched, zpool-tank and automountd.
I get the following in the logs:
Mar 17
Hi all
I have only just seen this, and thought someone may be able to help.
On heavy IO activity, my Solaris 11 Express box hosting a ZFS data pool
crashes. It seems to show page faults in several things, including nfsd,
sched, zpool-tank and automountd.
I get the following in the logs:
Mar 17
Please ignore. This was sent from the wrong account, and another copy was
sent from the correct one.
Sorry
> -Original Message-
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Karl Wagner
> Sent: 17 March 2011 15:
Hi everyone.
I was just wondering if there was a way to for a specific vdev in a pool to
be read-only?
I can think of several uses for this, but would need to know if it was
possible before thinking them through properly.
Cheers
Mouse
___
zf
> -Original Message-
> From: Tomas Ögren [mailto:st...@acc.umu.se]
> Sent: 08 April 2011 11:23
> To: Karl Wagner
> Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Read-only vdev
>
> On 08 April, 2011 - Karl Wagner sent me these 3,5K b
so there's an ARC entry referencing each individual DDT entry in the L2ARC?! I
had made the assumption that DDT entries would be grouped into at least minimum
block sized groups (8k?), which would have lead to a much more reasonable ARC
requirement.
seems like a bad design to me, which leads to
I have to agree. ZFS needs a more intelligent scrub/resilver algorithm, which
can 'sequentialise' the process.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Sandon Van Ness wrote:
Actually I have seen resilve
28 matches
Mail list logo
