Hi,
Since I don't even have a mirror for my root pool rpool, I'd like to
move as much of my system as possible over to my raidz2 pool, tank.
Can someone tell me which parts need to stay in rpool in order for the
system to work normally?
Thanks.
--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
on Fri Sep 25 2009, Cindy Swearingen Cindy.Swearingen-AT-Sun.COM wrote:
Hi David,
All system-related components should remain in the root pool, such as
the components needed for booting and running the OS.
Yes, of course. But which *are* those?
If you have datasets like /export/home or
on Fri Sep 25 2009, Glenn Lagasse Glenn.Lagasse-AT-Sun.COM wrote:
The question you're asking can't easily be answered. Sun doesn't test
configs like that. If you really want to do this, you'll pretty much
have to 'try it and see what breaks'. And you get to keep both pieces
if anything
Hey, thanks for following up.
on Sat Sep 19 2009, Victor Latushkin Victor.Latushkin-AT-Sun.COM wrote:
Can you provide output of
zdb -l /dev/rdsk/c8t1d0p0
zdb -l /dev/rdsk/c8t1d0s0
zdb -l /dev/rdsk/c9t0d0p0
zdb -l /dev/rdsk/c9t0d0s0
zdb -l /dev/rdsk/c9t1d0p0
zdb -l /dev/rdsk/c9t1d0s0
on Fri Sep 18 2009, Cindy Swearingen Cindy.Swearingen-AT-Sun.COM wrote:
Not much help, but some ideas:
1. What does the zpool history -l output say for the phantom pools?
d...@hoss:~# zpool history -l Xc8t1d0p0
History for 'Xc8t1d0p0':
2009-05-14.06:00:20 zpool create Xc8t1d0p0 c8t1d0p0
I've got a system with a 1-partition (74G) root pool and an 8-whole-disk
(500Gx8) raidz2 pool called tank. I reinstalled the OS recently, after
zfs export'ing tank, and did a zpool import -af. The following is what
I ended up with. I'm totally at a loss to explain these Xc... pools;
there
http://groups.google.com/group/zfs-fuse/msg/5fac5eaf2c7fccb8 shows some
(admittedly very crude) tests I did with OpenSolaris 0906, with some
very surprising performance results. In particular, read speed on an
8-disk pool seemed to drop by 50% when I set up the pool to use RAIDZ2.
Can anyone
on Fri May 22 2009, Richard Elling richard.elling-AT-gmail.com wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/zfs-fuse/msg/5fac5eaf2c7fccb8 shows some
(admittedly very crude) tests I did with OpenSolaris 0906, with some
very surprising performance results. In particular, read
If anyone cares, I'm doing some IOZone benchmarks of ZFS performance.
I've been posting my results in these threads:
http://groups.google.com/group/zfs-fuse/t/2f7b836c32a42b3
http://groups.google.com/group/zfs-fuse/t/b55a25ea432b416
Cheers,
--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Mike Gerdts wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:59 AM, David Abrahams d...@boostpro.com
wrote:
When I take a snapshot of a filesystem (or pool) and pass -r to get
all
the sub-filesystems, am I getting the state of all the sub-filesystem
snapshots at the same
on Mon Feb 23 2009, Robert Milkowski milek-AT-task.gda.pl wrote:
Hello David,
Saturday, February 21, 2009, 10:33:05 PM, you wrote:
DA on Sat Feb 21 2009, Miles Nordin carton-AT-Ivy.NET wrote:
Many new ZFS users are convinced to try ZFS because they want to back
up non-ZFS filesystems
When I take a snapshot of a filesystem (or pool) and pass -r to get all
the sub-filesystems, am I getting the state of all the sub-filesystem
snapshots at the same instant, or is it essentially equivalent to
making the sub-filesystem snapshots one at a time as I would have to do
if -r weren't
on Wed Feb 18 2009, Frank Cusack fcusack-AT-fcusack.com wrote:
On February 17, 2009 3:57:34 PM -0800 Joe S js.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:35 PM, David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca wrote:
If you want to do back ups of your file system use a documented utility
(tar, cpio,
David Magda dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca writes:
The format of the [zfs send] stream is evolving. No backwards
compatibility is guaranteed. You may not be able to receive your
streams on future versions of ZFS.
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-2240/zfs-1m
If you want to do back
on Sat Feb 21 2009, Miles Nordin carton-AT-Ivy.NET wrote:
da == David Abrahams d...@boostpro.com writes:
ic == Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com writes:
da disadvantage of the recommended approaches shows up when you
da start taking advantage of ZFS to clone filesystems without
da
on Mon Dec 29 2008, David Abrahams dave-AT-boostpro.com wrote:
on Tue Nov 11 2008, Mario Goebbels me-AT-tomservo.cc wrote:
Is it possible to install a GRUB that can boot a ZFS root, but installing it
from
within Linux?
I was planning on getting a new unmanaged dedicated server, which
on Tue Nov 11 2008, Mario Goebbels me-AT-tomservo.cc wrote:
Is it possible to install a GRUB that can boot a ZFS root, but installing it
from
within Linux?
I was planning on getting a new unmanaged dedicated server, which however
only comes
with Linux preinstalled. The thing has a
on Wed Oct 15 2008, Miles Nordin carton-AT-Ivy.NET wrote:
s == Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
s the use of zfs
s clones/snapshots encompasses the entire zfs filesystem
I use one ZFS filesystem per VDI file. It might be better to use
vmdk's and zvol's, but right now that's not
on Fri Oct 17 2008, Miles Nordin carton-AT-Ivy.NET wrote:
da == David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
da how to deal with backups to my Amazon s3 storage area. Does
da zfs send avoid duplicating common data in clones and
da snapshots?
how can you afford to use something so
Jeff Bonwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The main issues are administrative. ZFS is all about ease of use
(when it's not busy being all about data integrity), so getting the
interface to be simple and intuitive is important -- and not as
simple as it sounds. If your free disk space might be
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adam Leventhal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure I even agree with the notion that this is a real
problem (and if it is, I don't think is easily solved). Stripe
widths are a function of the expected failure rate and fault domains
of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But you're not answering my question:
How can RAID-Z preserve transactional semantics when a single
FS block write requires writing to multiple physical devices?
Since transactions in ZFS are committed until the ueberblock is written,
this boils down to:
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It does, as you say, take up another whole parity disk (or two in your
raidz2 case). And requires add-ons to be in units bigger than just
one drive.
I've seen people wondering if ZFS was a scam because the claims just
seemed too good to be true.
Hi,
I've been trying to understand how transactional writes work in
RAID-Z. I think I understand the ZFS system for transactional writes
in general (the only place I could find that info was wikipedia;
someone should fix that!). For RAID-Z it seems to me that the only
way to make it
24 matches
Mail list logo
