Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced drives

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Toby Thain wrote: > > On 9-Feb-10, at 2:02 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > > On 2/9/10 12:03 PM +1100 Daniel Carosone wrote:> >> >>> Snorcle wants to sell hardware. >>> >> >> LOL ... snorcle >> >> But apparently they don't. Have you seen the new website? Seems like a

Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced drives

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > > I assume you are responding to my comment and not Toby's. Did you try > to drill down past the front page? To look at the specs for ANY server? > I just thought it was much more difficult to look at and compare specs > than it was on Sun's

Re: [zfs-discuss] verging OT: how to buy J4500 w/o overpriced

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Ross Walker wrote: > On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:55 PM, matthew patton wrote: > > The cheapest solution out there that isn't a Supermicro-like server >> chassis, is DAS in the form of HP or Dell MD-series which top out at 15 or >> 16 3" drives. I can only chain 3 units

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS replication primary secondary

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Terry Hull wrote: > Thanks for the info. > > If that last common snapshot gets destroyed on the primary server, it is > then a full replication back to the primary server. Is that correct? > > -- > Terry > > I think a better way of stating it is that it picks th

Re: [zfs-discuss] Abysmal ISCSI / ZFS Performance

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Brian E. Imhoff wrote: > I am in the proof-of-concept phase of building a large ZFS/Solaris based > SAN box, and am experiencing absolutely poor / unusable performance. > > Where to begin... > > The Hardware setup: > Supermicro 4U 24 Drive Bay Chassis > Supermicro

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS replication primary secondary

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:31 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > On Wed, February 10, 2010 16:15, Tim Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Terry Hull wrote: > > > >> Thanks for the info. > >> > >> If that last common snapshot gets destroyed

Re: [zfs-discuss] Painfully slow RAIDZ2 as fibre channel COMSTAR export

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote: > > >> c7, c8 and c9 are LSI controllers using the MPT driver. The motherboard >> has >> 6 SATA ports which are presented as two controllers (presumably c10 and >> c11) >> one for ports 0-3 and one for ports 4 and 5; both currently use the >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: > 2010/2/22 Matthias Pfützner : > > You (Jacob Ritorto) wrote: > >> FWIW, I suspect that this situation does not warrant a "Wait and See" > >> response. We're being badly mistreated here and it's probably too > >> late to do anything about it

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: > > Since it seems you have absolutely no grasp of what's happening here, > Coming from the guy proclaiming the sky is falling without actually having ANY official statement whatsoever to back up that train of thought. > perhaps it would be

Re: [zfs-discuss] Clear vdev information from disk

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Feb 28, 2010, at 5:05 AM, Lutz Schumann wrote: > > Hello list, > > > > it is damn difficult to destroy ZFS labels :) > > Some people seem to have a knack of doing it accidentally :-) > > > I try to remove the vedev labels of disks used in

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mismatched replication levels

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Eduardo Bragatto wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I just joined the list after finding an unanswered message from Ray Van > Dolson in the archives. > > I'm reproducing his question here, as I'm wondering about the same issue > and did not find an answer for it anywhere ye

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

2010/3/1 "C. Bergström" > Troy Campbell wrote: > >> >> >> On 02/24/10 12:04 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Troy Campbell >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.htm

Re: [zfs-discuss] Wanted: sanity check for a clustered ZFS idea

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Jim Klimov wrote: > 2011-10-14 15:53, Edward Ned Harvey пишет: > > From: > zfs-discuss-bounces@**opensolaris.org[mailto: >>> zfs-discuss- >>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov >>> >>> I guess Richard was correct about the usecase description - >>>

Re: [zfs-discuss] Wanted: sanity check for a clustered ZFS idea

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Jim Klimov wrote: > Thanks to all that replied. I hope we may continue the discussion, > but I'm afraid the overall verdict so far is disapproval of the idea. > It is my understanding that those active in discussion considered > it either too limited (in applicati

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Nico Williams wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote: > >> I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used > to > >> make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Kees Nuyt wrote: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:05:29 -0500, Tim Cook wrote: > > >> Doesn't a scrub do more than what > >> 'fsck' does? > >> > > Not really. fsck will work on an offline filesystem to correct er

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > Every scrub I've ever done that has found an error required manual > fixing. > > Every pool I've ever created has been raid-z or raid-z2, so the

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble > > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] slow zfs send/recv speed

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Andrew Gabriel wrote: > On 11/15/11 23:05, Anatoly wrote: > >> Good day, >> >> The speed of send/recv is around 30-60 MBytes/s for initial send and >> 17-25 MBytes/s for incremental. I have seen lots of setups with 1 disk to >> 100+ disks in pool. But the speed do

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I create a mirror for a root rpool?

Do you still need to do the grub install? On Dec 15, 2011 5:40 PM, "Cindy Swearingen" wrote: > Hi Anon, > > The disk that you attach to the root pool will need an SMI label > and a slice 0. > > The syntax to attach a disk to create a mirrored root pool > is like this, for example: > > # zpool att

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Recovery: What do I try next?

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Myers Carpenter wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Myers Carpenter wrote: > >> I would like to pick the brains of the ZFS experts on this list: What >> would you do next to try and recover this zfs pool? >> > > I hate running across threads that ask a

Re: [zfs-discuss] S11 vs illumos zfs compatiblity

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > > So with a de facto fork (illumos) now in place, is it possible that two > > zpools will report the same version yet be incompatible across > > implementations? > > Not likely: the Illu

Re: [zfs-discuss] S11 vs illumos zfs compatiblity

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Jan 5, 2012, at 6:53 AM, sol wrote: > >> if a bug fixed in Illumos is never reported to Oracle by a customer, > >> it would likely never get fixed in Solaris either > > > > > > :-( > > > > I would have liked to think that there was some go

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and spread-spares (kinda like GPFS declustered RAID)?

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > Hi Jim, > > On Jan 6, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Jim Klimov wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > I have a new idea up for discussion. > > > > Several RAID systems have implemented "spread" spare drives > > in the sense that there is not an idling disk wait

Re: [zfs-discuss] Drive upgrades

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Edward Ned Harvey < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Michael Armstrong > > > > Is there a way to quickly ascertain if my seagate/h

Re: [zfs-discuss] Drive upgrades

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Tim Cook wrote: > > You will however have an issue replacing them if one should fail. You > need > > to have the same block count to replace a device, which is why I asked > for a >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Aaron Toponce: Install ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux

Oracle never promised anything. A leaked internal memo does not signify an official company policy or statement. On Apr 18, 2012 11:13 AM, "Freddie Cash" wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Cindy Swearingen > wrote: > >>Hmmm, how come they have encryption and we don't? > > > > As in Solar

Re: [zfs-discuss] Two disks giving errors in a raidz pool, advice needed

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Matt Breitbach wrote: > So this is a point of debate that probably deserves being brought to the > floor (probably for the umpteenth time, but indulge me). I've heard from > several people that I'd consider "experts" that once per year scrubbing is > sufficient,

Re: [zfs-discuss] New fast hash algorithm - is it needed?

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Edward Ned Harvey < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: Jim Klimov [mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru] > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:42 AM > > To: Edward Ned Harvey > > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] New fast hash algorithm - is it needed?

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZIL devices and fragmentation

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > - Opprinnelig melding - > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk > > wrote: > > Also keep in mind that if you have an SLOG (ZIL on a separate > > device

Re: [zfs-discuss] all in one server

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Erik Ableson wrote: > >> >> The bigger issue you'll run into will be data sizing as a year's worth of >> snapshot basically means that you're keeping a journal of every single >> write th

Re: [zfs-discuss] Question about ZFS snapshots

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Stefan Ring wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, andy thomas > wrote: > > I have a ZFS filseystem and create weekly snapshots over a period of 5 > weeks > > called week01, week02, week03, week04 and week05 respectively. Ny > question > > is: how do the snap

Re: [zfs-discuss] vm server storage mirror

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > Here's another one. > > ** ** > > Two identical servers are sitting side by side. They could be connected > to each other via anything (pr

Re: [zfs-discuss] vm server storage mirror

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:45 PM > > > > I would sugge

Re: [zfs-discuss] [zfs] portable zfs send streams (preview webrev)

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Arne Jansen wrote: > On 10/19/2012 09:58 PM, Matthew Ahrens wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Arne Jansen > > wrote: > > > > We have finished a beta version of the feature. A webrev for it > > can be found here: > > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] FC HBA for openindiana

On Friday, October 19, 2012, Christof Haemmerle wrote: > hi there, > i need to connect some old raid subsystems to a opensolaris box via fibre > channel. can you recommend any FC HBA? > > thanx > __ > How old? If its 1gbit you'll need a 4gb or slower hba. Qlogic woul

Re: [zfs-discuss] [zfs] portable zfs send streams (preview webrev)

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Arne Jansen wrote: > On 10/20/2012 01:10 AM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Arne Jansen > <mailto:sensi...@gmx.net>> wrote: > > > > On 10/19/2012 09:58 PM, Matthew Ahrens wrote: &g

Re: [zfs-discuss] FC HBA for openindiana

The built in drivers support Mpha so you're good to go. On Friday, October 19, 2012, Christof Haemmerle wrote: > Yep i Need. 4 Gig with multipathing if possible. > > On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Tim Cook 'cvml', 't...@cook.ms');>> wrote: > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] FC HBA for openindiana

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > Do make sure you're getting one that has the proper firmware. > > Those with BIOS don't work in SPARC boxes, and those with OpenBoot don't > work in x64 stuff. > > A quick "Sun FC HBA" search on ebay turns up a whole list of stuff that's > "

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace X with Y: devices have different sector alignment

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Jan Owoc wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Trond Michelsen > wrote: > > When I try to replace the old drive, I get this error: > > > > # zpool replace tank c4t5000C5002AA2F8D6d0 c4t5000C5004DE863F2d0 > > cannot replace c4t5000C5002AA2F8D6d0 with c4t5000C5

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace X with Y: devices have different sector alignment

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Jan Owoc wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Jan Owoc wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Trond Michelsen > wrote: > >> When I try to replace the old drive, I get this error: > >> > >> # zpool replace tank c4t5000C5002AA2F8D6d0 c4t5000C5004DE863F2d

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace X with Y: devices have different sector alignment

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Trond Michelsen wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Jan Owoc wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Trond Michelsen > >> wrote: > >>> How can I replace t

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Appliance as a general-purpose server question

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Jim Klimov wrote: > On 2012-11-22 17:31, Darren J Moffat wrote: > >> Is it possible to use the ZFS Storage appliances in a similar >>> way, and fire up a Solaris zone (or a few) directly on the box >>> for general-purpose software; or to shell-script administrati

Re: [zfs-discuss] dm-crypt + ZFS on Linux

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:49 AM, John Baxter wrote: > > We have the need to encypt our data, approximately 30TB on three ZFS > volumes under Solaris 10. The volumes currently reside on iscsi sans > connected via 10Gb/s ethernet. We have tested Solaris 11 with ZFS encrypted > volumes and found the

Re: [zfs-discuss] RFE: Un-dedup for unique blocks

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Jan 20, 2013, at 8:16 AM, Edward Harvey > wrote: > > But, by talking about it, we're just smoking pipe dreams. Cuz we all > know zfs is developmentally challenged now. But one can dream... > > I disagree the ZFS is developmentally chal

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS monitoring

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Borja Marcos wrote: > > Hello, > > I'n updating Devilator, the performance data collector for Orca and > FreeBSD to include ZFS monitoring. So far I am graphing the ARC and L2ARC > size, L2ARC writes and reads, and several hit/misses data pairs. > > Any suggestion

Re: [zfs-discuss] maczfs / ZEVO

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > Anybody using maczfs / ZEVO? Have good or bad things to say, in terms > of reliability, performance, features? > > ** ** > > My main reaso

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs-discuss mailing list & opensolaris EOL

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > In the absence of any official response, I guess we just have to assume > this list will be shut down, right? > > So I guess we just have t

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs-discuss mailing list & opensolaris EOL

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms] > > > > That would be the logical decision, yes. Not to poke fun, but did yo

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs-discuss mailing list & opensolaris EOL

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 3:42 PM, cindy swearingen < cindy.swearin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Ned and Everyone, > > This was new news to use too and we're just talking over some options > yesterday > afternoon so please give us a chance to regroup and provide some > alternatives. > > This list will

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs-discuss mailing list & opensolaris EOL

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms] > > > > Why would I spend all that time and > > energy participating in ANO

Re: [zfs-discuss] Feature Request for zfs pool/filesystem protection?

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Markus Grundmann wrote: > Hi! > > My name is Markus and I living in germany. I'm new to this list and I have > a simple question > related to zfs. My favorite operating system is FreeBSD and I'm very happy > to use zfs on them. > > It's possible to enhance the prop

Re: [zfs-discuss] Feature Request for zfs pool/filesystem protection?

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Feb 20, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Markus Grundmann > wrote: > > Hi! > > My name is Markus and I living in germany. I'm new to this list and I have > a simple question > related to zfs. My favorite operating system is FreeBSD and I'm very happy >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Is there performance penalty when adding vdev to existing pool

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Sašo Kiselkov wrote: > > On 02/21/2013 12:27 AM, Peter Wood wrote: >> >>> Will adding another vdev hurt the performance? >>> >> >> In general, the answer is: no. ZFS will try to balance

Re: [zfs-discuss] Feature Request for zfs pool/filesystem protection?

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Elling > wrote: > >> On Feb 20, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Markus Grundmann >> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> My

Re: [zfs-discuss] Feature Request for zfs pool/filesystem protection?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Jan Owoc wrote: > Hi Markus, > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Markus Grundmann > wrote: > > I think the "zfs allow|deny" feature is only for filesystems. I wish me a > > feature to protect the complete pool. The property is restricted to zpool > > commands. >

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Distro Advice

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Tiernan OToole wrote: > Good morning all. > > My home NAS died over the weekend, and it leaves me with a lot of spare > drives (5 2Tb and 3 1Tb disks). I have a Dell Poweredge 2900 Server sitting > in the house, which has not been doing much over the last while (b

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Distro Advice

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Volker A. Brandt wrote: > Tim Cook writes: > > > I need something that will allow me to share files over SMB (3 if > > > possible), NFS, AFP (for Time Machine) and iSCSI. Ideally, i would > > > like something i can manage "ea

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Distro Advice

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Tiernan OToole wrote: > Thanks all! I will check out FreeNAS and see what it can do... I will also > check my RAID Card and see if it can work with JBOD... fingers crossed... > The machine has a couple internal SATA ports (think there are 2, could be > 4) so i was

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Distro Advice

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Dan Swartzendruber wrote: > > I've been using it since rc13. It's been stable for me as long as you > don't > get into things like zvols and such... > > > Then it definitely isn't at the level of FreeBSD, and personally I would not consider that production ready.

Re: [zfs-discuss] [zfs] Petabyte pool?

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Jim Klimov wrote: > On 2013-03-16 15:20, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > >> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013, Kristoffer Sheather @ CloudCentral wrote: >> >> Well, off the top of my head: >>> >>> 2 x Storage Heads, 4 x 10G, 256G RAM, 2 x Intel E5 CPU's >>> 8 x 60-Bay JBOD's with 60

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > > > Can someone provide a link to the requisite source files so that we > > can see the copyright statements? It may well be that Oracle assigned > > the copyright to s

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > On 8/17/10 9:14 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: > >> On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack >> wrote: >> >> On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote: >>> No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will re-re

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Miles Nordin wrote: > > "ee" == Ethan Erchinger writes: > >ee> We've had a failed disk in a fully support Sun system for over >ee> 3 weeks, Explorer data turned in, and been given the runaround >ee> forever. > > that sucks. > > but while NetApp ma

Re: [zfs-discuss] NetApp/Oracle-Sun lawsuit done

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> >> True. But, I wonder if the settlement sets a precedent? >> > > No precedent has been set. > > > Certainly the lack of a successful lawsuit has *failed* to s

Re: [zfs-discuss] TLER and ZFS

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal > > Hard Drive -Bare Drive > > > > are only $129. > > > > vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives. > > > > 45% higher price, but it is my understanding that the 'RA

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to avoid striping ?

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Habony, Zsolt wrote: > In many large datacenters, a different storage team handles LUN requests > and assignment. > We ask a LUN in a specific size, and we get one. > > It might result that the first vdev (LUN) is on a beginning of a RAID set > on the storage, > a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Performance issues with iSCSI under Linux

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:40 PM, Haudy Kazemi wrote: > > >> One thing suspicious is that we notice a slow down of one pool when the >> other is under load. How can that be? >> >> Ian >> >> > A network switch that is being maxed out? Some switches cannot switch at > rated line speed on all thei

Re: [zfs-discuss] Running on Dell hardware?

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Kyle McDonald > > > > I'm currently considering purchasing 1 or 2 Dell R515's. > > > > With up to 14 drives, and up to 64GB of RAM

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any limit on pool hierarchy?

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Peter Taps wrote: > Folks, > > From zfs documentation, it appears that a "vdev" can be built from more > vdevs. That is, a raidz vdev can be built across a bunch of mirrored vdevs, > and a mirror can be built across a few raidz vdevs. > > Is my understanding correc

Re: [zfs-discuss] Faster than 1G Ether... ESX to ZFS

Channeling Ethernet will not make it any faster. Each individual connection will be limited to 1gbit. iSCSI with mpxio may work, nfs will not. On Nov 12, 2010 9:26 AM, "Eugen Leitl" wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:03:08AM -0500, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> Since combining ZFS storage backend,

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Administation Concole

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 11/13/2010 1:06 PM, Khushil Dep wrote: > > Think those might have been the thumper screen shots? Take a look at > nexentastor > > On 13 Nov 2010 20:12, "Brad Henderson" > wrote: > > I am new to OpenSolaris and I have been reading abou

Re: [zfs-discuss] Faster than 1G Ether... ESX to ZFS

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Miles Nordin wrote: > >>>>> "tc" == Tim Cook writes: > >tc> Channeling Ethernet will not make it any faster. Each >tc> individual connection will be limited to 1gbit. iSCSI with >tc> mpxio may wor

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import is this safe to use "-f" option in this case ?

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Jim Dunham wrote: > sridhar, > > > I have done the following (which is required for my case) > > > > Created a zpool (smpool) on a device/LUN from an array (IBM 6K) on host1 > > created a array level snapshot of the device using "dscli" to another > device which i

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import is this safe to use "-f" option in this case ?

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Jim Dunham wrote: > Tim, > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Jim Dunham wrote: > >> sridhar, >> >> > I have done the following (which is required for my case) >> > >> > Created a zpool (smpool) on a device/LUN from an array (IBM 6K) on host1 >> > created a arr

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Crypto in Oracle Solaris 11 Express

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Nov 16, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Rthoreau wrote: > > > > I just think that some people might need that little > > extra nudge that a few graphs and test would provide. If it happens to > > also come with a few good practices you could save a lo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ext. UPS-backed SATA SSD ZIL?

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Christopher George wrote: > > I haven't had a chance to test a Vertex 2 PRO against my 2 EX, and I'd > > be interested if anyone else has. > > I recently presented at the OpenStorage Summit 2010 and compared > exactly the three devices you mention in your post (Ver

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ RevoDrive ZFS support

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Orvar Korvar < knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote: > A noob question: > > These drives that people talk about, can you use them as a system disc too? > Install Solaris 11 Express on them? Or can you only use them as a L2ARC or > Zil? > -- > > They're a standard

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ RevoDrive ZFS support

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Orvar Korvar < knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Your system drive on a Solaris system generally doesn't see enough I/O > activity to require the kind of IOPS you can get out of most modern SSD's. " > > My system drive sees a lot of activity, to the degree

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ext. UPS-backed SATA SSD ZIL?

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Christopher George wrote: > > Why would you disable TRIM on an SSD benchmark? > > Because ZFS does *not* support TRIM, so the benchmarks > are configured to replicate actual ZIL Accelerator workloads. > > > If you're doing sustained high-IOPS workloads like that, t

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ RevoDrive ZFS support

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Orvar Korvar < knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I am waiting for the next gen Intel SSD drives, G3. They are arriving very > soon. And from what I can infer by reading here, I can use it without > issues. Solaris will recognize the Intel SDD drive without a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ext. UPS-backed SATA SSD ZIL?

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 11/27/2010 6:50 PM, Christopher George wrote: > >> Furthermore, I don't think "1 hour sustained" is a very accurate >>> benchmark. >>> Most workloads are bursty in nature. >>> >> The IOPS degradation is additive, the length of the first and

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ RevoDrive ZFS support

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Orvar Korvar < knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote: > There are problems with Sandforce controllers, according to forum posts. > Buggy firmware. And in practice, Sandforce is far below it's theoretical > values. I expect Intel to have fewer problems. > > Accordin

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ RevoDrive ZFS support

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:42 AM, David Magda wrote: > On Nov 27, 2010, at 16:14, Tim Cook wrote: > > You don't need drivers for any SATA based SSD. It shows up as a standard >> hard drive and plugs into a standard SATA port. By the time the G3 Intel >> drive is o

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ RevoDrive ZFS support

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Krunal Desai wrote: > > There are problems with Sandforce controllers, according to forum posts. > Buggy firmware. And in practice, Sandforce is far below it's theoretical > values. I expect Intel to have fewer problems. > > I believe it's more the firmware (and p

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zfs ignoring spares?

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > Hi all > > I have installed a new server with 77 2TB drives in 11 7-drive RAIDz2 > VDEVs, all on WD Black drives. Now, it seems two of these drives were bad, > one of them had a bunch of errors, the other was very slow. After zfs > offl

Re: [zfs-discuss] 3TB HDD in ZFS

It's based on a jumper on most new drives. On Dec 6, 2010 8:41 PM, "taemun" wrote: > On 7 December 2010 13:25, Brandon High wrote: >> >> There shouldn't be any problems using a 3TB drive with Solaris, so >> long as you're using a 64-bit kernel. Recent versions of zfs should >> properly recognize

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > >> It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. >> What's the latest version of publicly >> released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Edward Ned Harvey > wrote: > > > Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune > to netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band > together and fund t

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Tim Cook wrote: > > > > I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents > are > > > invalid because of prior art. > > > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, Tim Cook wrote: > > You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It is >> your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every

Re: [zfs-discuss] Guide to COMSTAR iSCSI?

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Chris Mosetick wrote: > I have found this post from Mike La Spina to be very detailed covering this > topic, yet I could not seem to get it to work right on my first hasty > attempt a while back. Let me know if you have success, or adjustments that > get this to

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Linder, Doug wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > The reason for not being able to use ZFS under Linux is not the license > > used by ZFS but the missing will for integration. > > > > Several lawyers explained already why adding ZFS to the Linux would > > just cre

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mixing different disk sizes in a pool?

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Ian D wrote: > Another question: all those disks are on Dell MD1000 JBODs (11 of them) > and we have 12 SAS ports on three LSI 9200-16e HBAs. Is there any point > connecting each JBOD on a separate port or is it ok cascading them in groups > of three? Is there

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mixing different disk sizes in a pool?

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Ian D wrote: > > The answer really depends on what you want to do with > > pool(s). You'll > > have to provide more information. > > Get the maximum of very random IOPS I get can out of those drives for > database usage. > -- > > Random IOPS won't max out the SAS

Re: [zfs-discuss] OT: anyone aware how to obtain 1.8.0 for X2100M2?

You have to have a support contract to download BIOS and firmware now. On Dec 19, 2010 12:29 PM, "Eugen Leitl" wrote: > > I realize this is off-topic, but Oracle has completely > screwed up the support site from Sun. I figured someone > here would know how to obtain > > Sun Fire X2100 M2 Server So

Re: [zfs-discuss] Disk failed, System not booting

Just boot off a live cd, import the pool, and swap it that way. I'm guessing you havent changed your failmode to continue? On Dec 20, 2010 10:48 AM, "Albert Frenz" wrote: > hi there, > > i got freenas installed with a raidz1 pool of 3 disks. one of them now failed and it gives me errors like "Unr

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling > > > > And people should note that Netapp filed their patent

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 12/25/2010 6:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling >>> >>> And people should note that Netapp filed their patents starti

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:05 AM, Deano wrote: > > > The question therefore is, is there room in the software implementation to > achieve performance and reliability numbers similar to expensive drives > whilst using relative cheap drives? > > >

<    1   2   3   4   5   >