On 18-Nov-06, at 2:01 PM, Bill Moore wrote:
Hi Michael. Based on the output, there should be no user-visible file
corruption. ZFS saw a bunch of checksum errors on the disk, but was
able to recover in every instance.
While 2-disk RAID-Z is really a fancy (and slightly more expensive,
On 28-Nov-06, at 7:02 PM, Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
On 11/28/06, Frank Cusack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect this will be the #1 complaint about zfs as it becomes more
popular. It worked before with ufs and hw raid, now with zfs it says
my data is corrupt! zfs sux0rs!
That's not the
On 28-Nov-06, at 10:01 PM, Elizabeth Schwartz wrote:
Well, I fixed the HW but I had one bad file, and the problem was
that ZFS was saying delete the pool and restore from tape when,
it turns out, the answer is just find the file with the bad inode,
delete it, clear the device and scrub.
On 29-Nov-06, at 8:53 AM, Brian Hechinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 10:48:46PM -0500, Toby Thain wrote:
Her original configuration wasn't redundant, so she should expect
this kind of manual recovery from time to time. Seems a logical
conclusion to me? Or is this one of those once
On 29-Nov-06, at 9:30 AM, David Elefante wrote:
I had the same thing happen to me twice on my x86 box. I installed
ZFS (RaidZ) on my enclosure with four drives and upon reboot the
bios hangs upon detection of the newly EFI'd drives. ... This
seems to me to be a serious problem.
On 1-Dec-06, at 6:29 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Dec 1, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Al Hopper wrote:
Followup: When you say you fixed the HW, I'm curious as to what you
found and if this experience with ZFS convinced you that your
trusted RAID
H/W did, in fact, have issues?
Do you
On 1-Dec-06, at 6:36 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Dec 1, 2006, at 4:34 PM, Dana H. Myers wrote:
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Dec 1, 2006, at 9:50 AM, Al Hopper wrote:
Followup: When you say you fixed the HW, I'm curious as to
what you
found and if this experience
On 2-Dec-06, at 12:56 PM, Al Hopper wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Dec 2, 2006, at 6:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While other file systems, when they become corrupt, allow you to
salvage data :-)
They allow you to salvage what you *think* is your
On 12-Dec-06, at 9:46 AM, George Wilson wrote:
Also note that the UB is written to every vdev (4 per disk) so the
chances of all UBs being corrupted is rather low.
Furthermore the time window where UBs are mutually inconsistent would
be very short, since they'd be updated together?
On 19-Dec-06, at 11:51 AM, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 10:15, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that
On 18-Dec-06, at 11:18 PM, Matt Ingenthron wrote:
Mike Seda wrote:
Basically, is this a supported zfs configuration?
Can't see why not, but support or not is something only Sun support
can speak for, not this mailing list.
You say you lost access to the array though-- a full disk failure
On 19-Dec-06, at 2:42 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
I do see this note in the 3511 documentation: Note - Do not use a
Sun StorEdge 3511 SATA array to store single instances of data. It
is more suitable for use in configurations where the array has a
backup or archival role.
My
... If the block checksums
show OK, then reading the parity for the corresponding data yields no
additional useful information.
It would yield useful information about the status of the parity
information on disk.
The read would be done because you're already paying the penalty for
reading all
On 8-Jan-07, at 11:54 AM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
...We're trying to recompile MySQL to give a
stacktrace and core file to track down exactly why its
crashing...hopefully it will illuminate if memory truly is the issue.
If you're using the Enterprise release, can't you get MySQL's
On 10-Jan-07, at 5:29 PM, roland wrote:
# zpool create 500megpool /home/roland/tmp/500meg.dat
cannot create '500megpool': name must begin with a letter
pool name may have been omitted
huh?
ok - no problem if special characters aren`t allowed, but why
_this_ weird looking limitaton ?
On 20-Jan-07, at 8:48 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 20, 2007 1:07:27 PM -0800 David J. Orman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On that note, I've recently read it might be the case that the 1u
sun
servers do not have hot-swappable disk drives... is this really
true?
On 21-Jan-07, at 12:12 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Richard Elling wrote:
To be clear, Sun defines hot swap as a device which can be
inserted or
removed without system administration tasks required.
Sun defines hot plug as a device which can be inserted or
removed without
On 22-Jan-07, at 5:28 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
In short, the release note is confusing, so ignore it. Use x2100
disks as hot pluggable like you've always used hot plug disks in
Solaris.
Won't work - some of us have tested it.
Again, NO these drives are not hot pluggable and the release
confused
customers :-(
Toby Thain wrote:
To be clear: the X2100 drives are neither hotswap nor hotplug
under
Solaris. Replacing a failed drive requires a reboot.
I do not believe this is true, though I don't have one to test.
This error has been sufficiently addressed in later posts, I think
On 23-Jan-07, at 4:51 PM, Bart Smaalders wrote:
Frank Cusack wrote:
yes I am an experienced Solaris admin and know all about devfsadm :-)
and the older disks command.
It doesn't help in this case. I think it's a BIOS thing. Linux and
Windows can't see IDE drives that aren't there at boot
On 25-Jan-07, at 5:09 AM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 23, 2007 8:11:24 PM -0200 Toby Thain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, would be nice for those of us who bought them. And judging by
other posts on this thread it seems just about everyone assumes
hotswap
just works.
hot *plug
On 25-Jan-07, at 3:56 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Tim,
Thursday, January 25, 2007, 4:44:34 PM, you wrote:
TC I guess I should clarify what I'm doing.
TC Essentially I'd like to have the / and swap on the first 60GB of
TC the disk. Then use the remaining 100GB as a zfs partition to
TC
On 26-Jan-07, at 7:29 PM, Selim Daoud wrote:
it would be good to have real data and not only guess ot anecdots
this story about wrong blocks being written by RAID controllers
sounds like the anti-terrorism propaganda we are leaving in: exagerate
the facts to catch everyone's attention
.It's
Oh - and the accounting folks love it when you tell them there's no
ongoing cost of ownership - because Joe Screwdriver can swap out a
failed
Seagate 500Gb SATA drive after he picks up a replacement from Frys
on his
lunch break!
Why do people think this will work? I never could figure it
On 26-Jan-07, at 11:34 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
Hi.
What do you guys think about implementing 'zfs/zpool rewrite' command?
It'll read every block older than the date when the command was
executed
and write it again (using standard ZFS COW mechanism, simlar to how
resilvering works,
On 27-Jan-07, at 4:57 AM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 27, 2007 12:27:17 AM -0200 Toby Thain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26-Jan-07, at 11:34 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
3. I created file system with huge amount of data, where most of the
data is read-only. I change my server from intel
On 27-Jan-07, at 10:15 PM, Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
We had in flight data corruption that EMC faithfully wrote just
like NetApp would in your case. Everybody is assuming that
corruption or data loss occurs only on disks, it can happen
everywhere. In a datacenter SAN you've so many more
On 27-Jan-07, at 10:15 PM, Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
... ZFS will not stop alpha particle induced memory corruption
after data has been received by server and verified to be correct.
Sadly I've been hit with that as well.
My brother points out that you can use a rad hardened CPU. ECC
On 28-Jan-07, at 7:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27-Jan-07, at 10:15 PM, Anantha N. Srirama wrote:
... ZFS will not stop alpha particle induced memory corruption
after data has been received by server and verified to be correct.
Sadly I've been hit with that as well.
My brother
Hi,
This is not exactly ZFS specific, but this still seems like a
fruitful place to ask.
It occurred to me today that hot spares could sit in standby (spun
down) until needed (I know ATA can do this, I'm supposing SCSI does
too, but I haven't looked at a spec recently). Does anybody do
On 29-Jan-07, at 9:04 PM, Al Hopper wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Hi,
This is not exactly ZFS specific, but this still seems like a
fruitful place to ask.
It occurred to me today that hot spares could sit in standby (spun
down) until needed (I know ATA can do this, I'm
On 30-Jan-07, at 5:48 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
...
One of the benefits of ZFS is that not only is head synchronization
not
needed, but also block offsets do not have to be the same. For
example,
in a traditional mirror, block 1 on device 1 is paired with block 1 on
device 2. In ZFS,
On 12-Feb-07, at 5:55 PM, Frank Hofmann wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Peter Schuller wrote:
Hello,
Often fsync() is used not because one cares that some piece of
data is on
stable storage, but because one wants to ensure the subsequent I/O
operations
are performed after previous I/O
On 26-Feb-07, at 11:32 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
Rayson Ho wrote:
NT kernel has the filter driver framework:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/driver/filterdrv/default.mspx
It seems to be useful for things like FS encrytion and compression...
is there any plan to implement something similar in
On 28-Feb-07, at 6:43 PM, Erblichs wrote:
ZFS Group,
My two cents..
Currently, in my experience, it is a waste of time to try to
guarantee exact location of disk blocks with any FS.
? Sounds like you're confusing logical location with physical
location,
On 11-Mar-07, at 11:12 PM, Ayaz Anjum wrote:
HI !
Well as per my actual post, i created a zfs file as part of Sun
cluster HAStoragePlus, and then disconned the FC cable, since there
was no active IO hence the failure of disk was not detected, then i
touched a file in the zfs
On 12-Mar-07, at 11:28 AM, Malachi de AElfweald wrote:
ZFS supports swap to /dev/vzol, however, I do not
have data related to
performance.
Also note that ZFS does not support dump yet, see RFE
5008936.
I am getting ready to install a new server from scratch. While I
had been hoping to do a
On 12-Mar-07, at 2:37 PM, Bart Smaalders wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Hi Brian,
To my understanding the X2100 M2 and X2200 M2 are basically the same
board OEM'd from Quanta...except the 2200 M2 has two sockets.
As to ZFS and their weirdness, it would seem to me that fixing it
would be
On 29-Mar-07, at 5:43 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
Atul Vidwansa wrote:
Hi Richard,
I am not talking about source(ASCII) files. How about versioning
production data? I talked about file level snapshots because
snapshotting entire filesystem does not make sense when
application is
changing
On 9-Apr-07, at 8:15 AM, Atul Vidwansa wrote:
Hi,
I have few questions about the way a transaction group is created.
1. Is it possible to group transactions related to multiple operations
in same group? For example, an rmdir foo followed by mkdir bar,
can these end up in same transaction
On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote:
Rich Teer writes:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux
changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??
I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing
On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:
On 4/11/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license
as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
Hey
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:01 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of
license as
equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
Read what I
On 12-Apr-07, at 8:34 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ignatich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling writes:
There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL.
Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a derived work from Linux.
I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
...
Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that
BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet don't
want to give others the same benefit.
That's a pointless remark. Why?
BSD licensors choose that
On 12-Apr-07, at 3:40 PM, Sean Liu wrote:
In good'ol days if you are moving file/files in the same UFS, it's
a snap as the moving is only a change in dir/inode level.
Since zfs encourages creating more filesystems instead of dirs,
moving can be an issue - data must be moved around instead
On 12-Apr-07, at 7:42 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On April 12, 2007 7:10:34 PM -0300 Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 3:40 PM, Sean Liu wrote:
In good'ol days if you are moving file/files in the same UFS, it's
a snap as the moving is only a change in dir/inode level
On 12-Apr-07, at 7:21 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their
choice
of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature
of the
GPL,
Is it worth reading the rest of your post
On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies
of Microsoft
- have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY
to MY code
as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has
On 13-Apr-07, at 9:51 AM, Al Hopper wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies
of Microsoft
- have all foundered on the simple fact
On 13-Apr-07, at 11:39 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.
And I disagree. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
The interesting use case of contributing, and I think the one
that spurred
the creation of the GPL, is I use
It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks
for not
liking ZFS.
I certainly don't understand why they ignore it.
How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007
without ZFS dominating the agenda??
http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/
That long fscks should
On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
...
I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop,
Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you.
I would agree as well
On 17-Apr-07, at 1:08 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
...
I belive
On 17-Apr-07, at 1:24 PM, Rayson Ho wrote:
On 4/17/07, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being
inappropriate for
desktop use (who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop
machine?!) doesn't get it.
Well, for many of those who
On 17-Apr-07, at 10:56 AM, James C. McPherson wrote:
Toby Thain wrote:
It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks
for not
liking ZFS.
I certainly don't understand why they ignore it.
How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007
without ZFS
On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Rayson,
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote:
RH On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first??
Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-)
RH While ZFS is nice, I
On 17-Apr-07, at 2:00 PM, Rayson Ho wrote:
On 4/17/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OS X tends to effectively elide the book larning part of using
UNIX. I don't think ZFS would be any exception - they won't ship
until you don't even know it's there.
But then, I have helped people
On 17-Apr-07, at 10:54 PM, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
released under a License which
On 18-Apr-07, at 5:22 PM, J.P. King wrote:
Can we discuss this with a few objectives ? Like define backup and
then describe mechanisms that may achieve one? Or a really big
question that I guess I have to ask, do we even care anymore?
/lurk
Personally I think you would benefit from some
On 20-Apr-07, at 5:54 AM, Tim Thomas wrote:
Hi Wee
I run a setup of SAM-FS for our main file server and we loved the
backup/restore parts that you described.
That is great to hear.
The main concerns I have with SAM fronting the entire conversation is
data integrity. Unlike ZFS, SAMFS
On 25-Apr-07, at 12:17 PM, cedric briner wrote:
hello the list,
After reading the _excellent_ ZFS Best Practices Guide, I've seen
in the section: ZFS and Complex Storage Consideration that we
should configure the storage system to ignore command which will
flush the memory into the
On 4-May-07, at 6:53 PM, Al Hopper wrote:
...
[1] it continues to amaze me that many sites, large or small, don't
have a
(written) policy for mechanical component replacement - whether disk
drives or fans.
You're not the only one. In fact, while I'm not exactly talking
enterprise level
On 5-May-07, at 2:07 AM, MC wrote:
That's a lot of talking without an answer :)
internal EIDE 320GB (boot drive), internal
250, 200 and 160 GB drives, and an external USB 2.0 600 GB drive.
So, what's the best zfs configuration in this situation?
RAIDZ uses disk space like RAID5. So the
On 7-May-07, at 3:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Lee,
You can decide whether you want to use ZFS for a root file system now.
You can find this info here:
http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/boot/
Bearing in mind that his machine is a G4 PowerPC. When Solaris 10 is
ported to this
On 7-May-07, at 5:27 PM, Andy Lubel wrote:
I think it will be in the next.next (10.6) OSX,
baselessSpeculation
Well, the iPhone forced a few months schedule slip, perhaps *instead
of* dropping features?
/baselessSpeculation
Mind you I wouldn't be particularly surprised if ZFS wasn't in
On 9-May-07, at 4:45 AM, Andreas Koppenhoefer wrote:
Hello,
solaris Internals wiki contains many interesting things about zfs.
But i have no glue about the reasons for this entry:
In Section ZFS Storage Pools Recommendations - Storage Pools you
can read:
[i]For all production environments,
On 9-May-07, at 3:44 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Mario,
Wednesday, May 9, 2007, 5:56:18 PM, you wrote:
MG I've read that it's supposed to go at full speed, i.e. as
fast as
MG possible. I'm doing a disk replace and what zpool reports
kind of
MG surprises me. The
On 18-May-07, at 1:57 PM, William D. Hathaway wrote:
An example would be if you had a raw snapshot on tape.
Unless I misunderstand ZFS, you can archive the contents of a
snapshot, but there's no concept of a 'raw snapshot' divorced from a
filesystem.
A single file or subset of files
On 18-May-07, at 4:39 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
David Bustos wrote:
... maybe Sun should make more of the
cost savings in storage ZFS offers to gain a cost advantage over the
competition,
Cheaper AND more robust+featureful is hard to beat.
--T
___
On 22-May-07, at 11:01 AM, Louwtjie Burger wrote:
On 5/22/07, Pål Baltzersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if your HW-RAID-controller dies? in say 2 years or more..
What will read your disks as a configured RAID? Do you know how to
(re)configure the controller or restore the config without
On 24-May-07, at 6:26 AM, Henk Langeveld wrote:
Richard Elling wrote:
It all depends on the configuration. For a single disk system,
copies
should generally be faster than mirroring. For multiple disks, the
performance should be similar as copies are spread out over different
disks.
On 24-May-07, at 6:51 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right of course and lots of people use them. My point is
that
Solaris has been 64 bits lon ger then most others. ...
IRIX was much earlier than Solaris; Solaris was pretty late in
the 64 bit
game
On 25-May-07, at 1:22 AM, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Toby Thain wrote:
On 22-May-07, at 11:01 AM, Louwtjie Burger wrote:
On 5/22/07, Pål Baltzersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if your HW-RAID-controller dies? in say 2 years or more..
What will read your disks as a configured RAID? Do you
On 25-May-07, at 7:28 PM, John Plocher wrote:
...
I found that the V440's original 72Gb drives had been upgraded
to Dell 148Gb Fujitsu drives, and the Sun versions of those drives
(same model number...) had different firmware
You can't get hold of another one of the same drive?
--Toby
On 30-May-07, at 12:33 PM, Roch - PAE wrote:
Torrey McMahon writes:
Toby Thain wrote:
On 25-May-07, at 1:22 AM, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Toby Thain wrote:
On 22-May-07, at 11:01 AM, Louwtjie Burger wrote:
On 5/22/07, Pål Baltzersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if your HW-RAID
On 30-May-07, at 4:28 PM, Mark A. Carlson wrote:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/30/0135218from=rss
One highly rated comment features some of the first real ZFS FUD I've
seen in the wild. Does this signify that ZFS is being taken seriously
now? :)
--Toby
bugs; fixed
bugs; and incorrect.
--Toby
Jerry K
Toby Thain wrote:
On 30-May-07, at 4:28 PM, Mark A. Carlson wrote:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/30/0135218from=rss
One highly rated comment features some of the first real ZFS FUD
I've seen in the wild. Does this signify
On 1-Jun-07, at 7:50 PM, Eric Schrock wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 12:33:29PM -1000, J. David Beutel wrote:
Excellent! Thanks! I've gleaned the following from your blog.
Is this
correct?
* A week ago you committed a change that will:
** get current SMART parameters and faults for SATA
On 7-Jun-07, at 4:53 PM, Lee Fyock wrote:
Thanks, Chad.
There's some debate in the Mac community about what the phrase the
file system in Mac OS X means. Does that mean that machines that
ship with Leopard will run on ZFS discs by default? Will ZFS be the
default file system when
On 7-Jun-07, at 6:28 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On June 7, 2007 6:21:34 PM -0300 Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In general, IMHO this will be good for ZFS: Apple won't ship until
it's
shaken down and idiot proof.
Oh, I dunno. Apple ships a lot of buggy stuff.
Not at this level
On 7-Jun-07, at 8:13 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On June 7, 2007 6:37:29 PM -0300 Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 7-Jun-07, at 6:28 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On June 7, 2007 6:21:34 PM -0300 Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In general, IMHO this will be good for ZFS: Apple won't ship
On 12-Jun-07, at 9:23 AM, Sunstar Dude wrote:
Yea, What is the deal with this? ...
Can anyone explain the absence of ZFS in Leopard??? I signed up for
this forum just to post this.
Steve giveth and Steve taketh away.
--Toby
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On 12-Jun-07, at 1:54 PM, Erblichs wrote:
Group,
Isn't Apple strength really in the non-compute intensive
personal computer / small business environment?
IE, Plug and play.
Thus, even though ZFS is able to work as the default
FS, should it be the
On 12-Jun-07, at 4:38 PM, Sunstar Dude wrote:
Perhaps Jonathan Schwartz really didn't want ZFS in OS X - Solaris
competition - and he knew that if he did pre-announce ZFS in OS X
that Steve Jobs would drop it just to get back at him. Maybe this
was intentionally done by Schwartz to keep
On 12-Jun-07, at 6:50 PM, John wrote:
Ok.. never mind... the resilver says it completed... kind of odd...
My hunch is that, unlike a scrub, say, it's not something you'd
ordinarily want to stop?
--Toby
This message posted from opensolaris.org
On 13-Jun-07, at 1:14 PM, Rick Mann wrote:
From (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;?
articleID=199903525)
... Croll explained, ZFS is not the default file system for
Leopard. We are exploring it as a file system option for high-end
storage systems with really large
On 13-Jun-07, at 4:09 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On June 13, 2007 9:14:48 AM -0700 Rick Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
From
(http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;?
articleID=199903
525)
...
In a follow-up interview today, Croll explained, ZFS is not the
default
file system
On 20-Jun-07, at 12:23 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
Hello,
I'm quite interested in ZFS, like everybody else I
suppose, and am about
to install FBSD with ZFS.
On that note, i have a different first question to
start with. I
personally am a Linux fanboy, and would love to
see/use ZFS on
On 28-Jun-07, at 11:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/27/2007 06:25:47 PM:
The only thing I haven't found in zfs yet, is metadata etc info.
The previous 'next best thing' in FS was of course ReiserFS (4).
Reiser3
was quite a nice thing, fast, journaled
On 28-Jun-07, at 4:46 PM, Oliver Schinagl wrote:
I guess the userdefinable properties is then what i'm looking for.
Well
not what *I* am looking for perse. i was reading the article on Hans
Reiser, the one over at wired, good read btw,
On 18-Jul-07, at 8:38 PM, Scott Lovenberg wrote:
Erm, yeah, sorry about that (previous stupid questions). I wrote
it before having my first cup of coffee... Thanks for the details,
though. If you guys have any updates, please, drop a link to new
info in this thread
I hate to be a
On 26-Jul-07, at 1:24 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Matthew,
Thursday, July 26, 2007, 2:56:32 PM, you wrote:
MA Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Matthew,
Monday, June 18, 2007, 7:28:35 PM, you wrote:
MA FYI, we're already working with engineers on some other ports
to ensure
MA
On 8-Oct-07, at 5:39 PM, roland wrote:
besides re-inventing the wheel somebody at sun should wake up and
go ask mr. oberhumer and pay him $$$ to get lzo into ZFS.
this is taken from http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/lzo/
lzodoc.php :
Copyright
-
LZO is Copyright (C) 1996,
On 24-Oct-07, at 3:24 PM, Francois Dion wrote:
Not sure if it's been posted yet, my email is currently down...
http://weblog.infoworld.com/yager/archives/2007/10/
suns_zfs_is_clo.html
Interesting piece. This is the second post from Yager that shows
solaris in a pretty good light. I
On 7-Nov-07, at 9:32 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello can,
Monday, November 5, 2007, 4:42:14 AM, you wrote:
cyg Having gotten a bit tired of the level of ZFS hype floating
cyg around these days (especially that which Jonathan has chosen to
cyg associate with his spin surrounding the
On 9-Nov-07, at 2:45 AM, can you guess? wrote:
Au contraire: I estimate its worth quite
accurately from the undetected error rates reported
in the CERN Data Integrity paper published last
April (first hit if you Google 'cern data
integrity').
While I have yet to see any checksum error
On 9-Nov-07, at 3:23 PM, Scott Laird wrote:
Most video formats are designed to handle errors--they'll drop a frame
or two, but they'll resync quickly. So, depending on the size of the
error, there may be a visible glitch, but it'll keep working.
Interestingly enough, this applies to a lot
On 14-Nov-07, at 12:43 AM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Hi Darren,
Ah, your CPU end was referring to the NFS client cpu, not the
storage
device CPU. That wasn't clear to me. The same limitations would
apply
to ZFS (or any other filesystem) when running in support of an NFS
server.
On 14-Nov-07, at 7:06 AM, can you guess? wrote:
...
And how about FAULTS?
hw/firmware/cable/controller/ram/...
If you had read either the CERN study or what I
already said about
it, you would have realized that it included the
effects of such
faults.
...and ZFS is the only
1 - 100 of 263 matches
Mail list logo
