On 13-Apr-07, at 11:53 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Can we please get this licensing debate OFF zfs-discuss.
Ack. :)
--T
The thread has long since lost any relevance to ZFS on Linux or
even ZFS in general. It instead has become yet another debate by
non legally trained people on their
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" shou
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. With
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 200
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
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
On 18-Apr-07, at 4:26 AM, Erblichs wrote:
Toby Thain,
I am sure someone will divise a method of subdividing
the FS and run a background fsck and/or checksums on the
different file objects or ... before this becomes a issue. :)
In the meantime I'll jus
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 Licens
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?
Personally I think you would benefit from some slig
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 does
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 disk.
On 26-Apr-07, at 11:57 AM, cedric briner wrote:
okay let'say that it is not. :)
Imagine that I setup a box:
- with Solaris
- with many HDs (directly attached).
- use ZFS as the FS
- export the Data with NFS
- on an UPS.
Then after reading the :
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/in
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 p
On 7-May-07, at 5:27 PM, Andy Lubel wrote:
I think it will be in the next.next (10.6) OSX,
Well, the iPhone forced a few months schedule slip, perhaps *instead
of* dropping features?
Mind you I wouldn't be particularly surprised if ZFS wasn't in 10.5.
Just so long as we get it eventua
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 cou
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
___
zf
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 withou
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.
Here
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 wi
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?
On 25-May-07, at 10:00 AM, Torrey McMahon wrote:
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-controller dies? in
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 H
On 30-May-07, at 4:28 PM, Mark A. Carlson wrote:
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/30/0135218&from=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
___
nown 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=07/05/30/0135218&from=rss
One highly rated comment features some of the first real ZFS FUD
I've seen in the wild. Does
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 initi
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.
N
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:
On 8-Jun-07, at 3:13 AM, BVK wrote:
On 6/8/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-)
I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their
Mach based (?) BSD and switch to solaris.
Many think this wo
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 defaul
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 ZF
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 st
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 syste
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 linux
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 and
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,
(http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-07/ff_ha
On 11-Jul-07, at 3:16 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Kent Watsen wrote:
>>> #define MTTR_HOURS_NO_SPARE 16
>>>
>>> I think this is optimistic :-)
>>>
>> Not really for me as the array is in my basement - so I assume
>> that I'll
>> swap in a drive when I get home from work ;)
>>
> Yes, it's in
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
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
On 5-Oct-07, at 2:26 AM, Jonathan Loran wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about this for awhile, but Anton's analysis
> makes me think about it even more:
>
> We all love ZFS, right. It's futuristic in a bold new way, which
> many virtues, I won't preach tot he choir. But to make it all
> gl
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 (
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
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
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
On 11-Nov-07, at 10:19 AM, can you guess? wrote:
>>
>> On 9-Nov-07, at 2:45 AM, can you guess? wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> This suggests that in a ZFS-style installation
>> without a hardware
>>> RAID controller they would have experienced at
>> worst a bit error
>>> about every 10^14 bits or 12 TB
>>
>
On 13-Nov-07, at 9:18 PM, A Darren Dunham wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 07:33:20PM -0200, Toby Thain wrote:
>>>>> Yup - that's exactly the kind of error that ZFS and
>>>> WAFL do a
>>>>> perhaps uniquely good job of catching.
>>&g
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 N
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.
>>
>>
>> .
On 16-Nov-07, at 4:36 AM, Anton B. Rang wrote:
> This is clearly off-topic :-) but perhaps worth correcting --
>
>> Long-time MAC users must be getting used to having their entire world
>> disrupted and having to re-buy all their software. This is at
>> least the
>> second complete flag-day (no
On 18-Nov-07, at 7:30 PM, Dickon Hood wrote:
> ...
> : If you're still referring to your incompetent alleged research,
> [...]
> : [...] right out of the
> : same orifice from which you've pulled the rest of your crap.
>
> It's language like that that is causing the problem. IMHO you're
> be
On 29-Nov-07, at 2:48 PM, Tom Buskey wrote:
>> Getting back to 'consumer' use for a moment, though,
>> given that something like 90% of consumers entrust
>> their PC data to the tender mercies of Windows, and a
>> large percentage of those neither back up their data,
>> nor use RAID to guard agai
On 29-Nov-07, at 4:09 PM, Paul Kraus wrote:
> On 11/29/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Xserve + Xserve RAID... ZFS is already in OS X 10.5.
>>
>> As easy to set up and administer as any OS X system; a problem free
>> and FAST network server t
On 5-Dec-07, at 4:19 AM, can you guess? wrote:
On 11/7/07, can you guess?
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>> However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source
>> approach
>>> which may allow that to happen, so the real
>> question
>>> becomes just how it compares with equally
>> inexpensive
>>>
On 4-Dec-07, at 9:35 AM, can you guess? wrote:
> Your response here appears to refer to a different post in this
> thread.
>
>> I never said I was a typical consumer.
>
> Then it's unclear how your comment related to the material which
> you quoted (and hence to which it was apparently respon
On 11-Dec-07, at 9:44 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello can,
> ...
>
> What some people are also looking for, I guess, is a black-box
> approach - easy to use GUI on top of Solaris/ZFS/iSCSI/etc. So they
> don't have to even know it's ZFS or Solaris. Well...
Pretty soon OS X will be exactly t
On 13-Dec-07, at 1:56 PM, Shawn Joy wrote:
> What are the commands? Everything I see is c1t0d0, c1t1d0. no
> slice just the completed disk.
I have used the following HOWTO. (Markup is TWiki, FWIW.)
Device names are for a 2-drive X2100. Other machines may differ, for
example, X4100 dr
On 13-Dec-07, at 3:54 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Shawn,
>>
>> Using slices for ZFS pools is generally not recommended so I think
>> we minimized any command examples with slices:
>>
>> # zpool create tank mirror c1t0d0s0 c1t1d0s0
>>
>
> Cindy,
> I think the term "gene
On 13-Dec-07, at 6:28 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On December 13, 2007 11:34:54 AM -0800 "can you guess?"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> By contrast, if extremely rare undetected and (other than via ZFS
>> checksums) undetectable (or considerably more common undetected but
>> detectable via disk E
On 9-Jan-08, at 10:26 PM, Noël Dellofano wrote:
> As I mentioned, ZFS is still BETA, so there are (and likely will be)
> some issues turn up with compatibility with the upper layers of the
> system if that's what you're referring to.
Two potential areas come immediately to mind - case sensitivi
On 26-Jan-08, at 2:24 AM, Joachim Pihl wrote:
> Running SXDE (snv_70) for a file server, and I must admit I'm new to
> Solaris and zfs. zfs does not appear to do any compression at all,
> here is
> what I did to set it up:
>
> I created a four drive raidz array:
>
> zpool create pool raidz c0d0
On 23-Jun-08, at 6:59 PM, Miles Nordin wrote:
>> ... A proper
> DBMS (anything except MySQL)
Perhaps you mean MyISAM. MySQL's InnoDB engine offers ACID.
--Toby
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/m
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,
CPU-wis
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 28-Nov-06, at 10:35 PM, Anton B. Rang wrote:
No, you still have the hardware problem.
What hardware problem?
There seems to be an unspoken assumption that any checksum error
detected by ZFS is caused by a relatively high error rate in the
underlying hardware.
There are at least two
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.
Indeed
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 2:39 AM, Dana H. Myers wrote:
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Dec 2, 2006, at 12:06 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
[...]
I don't think that the issue here, it's more one of perceived data
integrity. People who have been happily using a single RAID 5
are now
finding that
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 d
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?
--Tob
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 unders
On 20-Dec-06, at 3:05 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Hi Toby,
My understanding on the subject of SATA firmware reliability vs.
FC/SCSI is that its mostly related to SATA firmware being a lot
younger. ... Its probably unfair to expect defect rates out of SATA
firmware equivalent to firmware t
... 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
assis
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 ?
Pote
On 13-Jan-07, at 11:52 AM, roland wrote:
i have come across an interesting article at :
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2859&p=5
it`s about sata vs. sas/scsi realiability , telling that typical
desktop sata drives
".on average experience an Unrecoverable Error every 12.5
te
On 18-Jan-07, at 9:55 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Hi Frank,
What do they [not] support?
Hotplug.
See, inter alia,
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.solaris/msg/56e9e341607aa984
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.solaris/msg/9c0afc2668207d36
--Toby
We've had some various s
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 withou
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 relea
ue to have
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
201 - 295 of 295 matches
Mail list logo
