On Tue, March 5, 2013 10:02, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Rsync does need to read files on the destination filesystem to see if
they have changed. If the system has sufficient RAM (and/or L2ARC)
then files may still be cached from the previous day's run. In most
cases only a small subset of the
On Tue, March 5, 2013 11:17, Russ Poyner wrote:
Your idea to use zfs diff to limit the need to stat the entire
filesystem tree intrigues me. My current rsync backups are normally
limited by this very factor. It takes longer to walk the filesystem tree
than it does to transfer the new data.
On Wed, November 21, 2012 16:06, Jim Klimov wrote:
On 2012-11-21 21:55, Ian Collins wrote:
I can't help thinking these drives would be overkill for an ARC device.
All of the expensive controller hardware is geared to boosting random
write IOPs, which somewhat wasted on a write slowly, read
On Wed, July 11, 2012 04:50, Ferenc-Levente Juhos wrote:
Actually although as you pointed out that the chances to have an sha256
collision is minimal, but still it can happen, that would mean
that the dedup algorithm discards a block that he thinks is a duplicate.
Probably it's anyway better
On Tue, July 10, 2012 19:56, Sašo Kiselkov wrote:
However, before I start out on a pointless endeavor, I wanted to probe
the field of ZFS users, especially those using dedup, on whether their
workloads would benefit from a faster hash algorithm (and hence, lower
CPU utilization). Developments
On Wed, July 11, 2012 09:45, Sao Kiselkov wrote:
I'm not convinced waiting makes much sense. The SHA-3 standardization
process' goals are different from ours. SHA-3 can choose to go with
something that's slower, but has a higher security margin. I think that
absolute super-tight security
On Wed, July 11, 2012 10:23, casper@oracle.com wrote:
I think that I/O isn't getting as fast as CPU is; memory capacity and
bandwith and CPUs are getting faster. I/O, not so much.
(Apart from the one single step from harddisk to SSD; but note that
I/O is limited to standard interfaces
On Wed, July 11, 2012 11:58, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
You're entirely sure that there could never be two different blocks that
can hash to the same value and have different content?
[...]
The odds of being hit by lighting (at least in the US) are about 1 in
700,000. I don't worry about that
On Thu, February 16, 2012 09:55, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I've never used ZFS encryption. How does it work? Do you need to type in
a pre-boot password? And if so, how do you do that with a server? Or does
it use TPM or something similar, to avoid the need for a pre-boot password?
Darren
On Wed, February 1, 2012 14:03, Linder, Doug wrote:
Achim Wolpers wrote:
I'm searching for a GUI tool to set ZFS (NFSv4) ACLs. I found some
nautilus add ons in the web but
they don't seen to work with nautilus shipped with OI. Any solution?
I've been looking for something like this for
On Tue, January 24, 2012 13:37, Jim Klimov wrote:
One more rationale - compatibility, including future-proof
somewhat (the zfs-send format explicitly does not guarantee
that it won't change incompatibly). I mean stransfer of data
between systems that do not implement the same set of
On Mon, January 16, 2012 01:19, Richard Elling wrote:
[1] http://www.usenix.org/event/fast10/tech/full_papers/zhang.pdf
Yes. Netapp has funded those researchers in the past. Looks like a FUD
piece to me.
Lookout everyone, the memory system you bought from Intel might suck!
From the paper:
clone
of ZFS.
I don't know why APple don't just get off the pot and officially adopy
ZFS. I mean, they've embraced DTrace, so what's stopping them from using
ZFS too?
This was discussed already:
[On Sat Oct 24 14:14:19 UTC 2009, David Magda wrote:]
Apple can currently just take the ZFS
On Mon, January 16, 2012 11:22, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
This seems very unlikely since the future needs of Apple show little
requirement for zfs. Apple only offers one computer model which
provides ECC and a disk drive configuration which is marginally useful
for zfs. This computer model has
On Wed, January 11, 2012 11:40, Nico Williams wrote:
I don't find this terribly attractive, but maybe I'm just not looking
at it the right way. Perhaps there is a killer enterprise feature for
ECC here: stretching MTTDL in the face of a device failure in a mirror
or raid-z configuration (but
On Nov 12, 2011, at 00:55, Richard Elling wrote:
Better than ?
If the disks advertise 512 bytes, the only way around it is with a whitelist.
I would
be rather surprised if Oracle sells 4KB sector disks for Solaris systems…
Solaris 10. OpenSolaris.
But would it be surprising to use SANs
On Nov 10, 2011, at 18:41, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 08:17:55PM -0400, John D Groenveld wrote:
Under both Solaris 10 and Solaris 11x, I receive the evil message:
| I/O request is not aligned with 4096 disk sector size.
| It is handled through Read Modify Write but the
On Wed, November 9, 2011 10:35, Tomas Forsman wrote:
Too bad NFS is resilient against servers coming and going..
NFSv4 is statefull, so server reboots are more noticeable. (This has
pluses and minuses.)
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Tue, November 8, 2011 09:38, Evaldas Auryla wrote:
I'm trying to evaluate what are the risks of running NFS share of zfs
dataset with sync=disabled property. The clients are vmware hosts in our
environment and server is SunFire X4540 Thor system. Though general
recommendation tells not to
On Wed, November 2, 2011 08:25, Paul Kraus wrote:
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
Really, they WERE still a useful reference for many of us,
even if posted a few years back...
I always used the mailing list, and have kept every message since
I
On Thu, October 27, 2011 11:32, Albert Shih wrote:
I also recommend LSI 9200-8E or new 9205-8E with the IT firmware based
on past experience
Do you known if the LSI-9205-8E HBA or the LSI-9202-16E HBA work under
FreBSD 9.0 ?
Check the man page for mpt(4):
On Tue, October 25, 2011 09:42, adele@oracle.com wrote:
Hi all,
I have a customer who wants to know what is the max characters allowed
in creating name for zpool,
Are there any restrictions in using special characters?
255 characters. Try doing a 'man zpool':
Creates a new storage
On Wed, October 19, 2011 08:15, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
Fsck can only fix known file system inconsistencies in file system
structures. Because there is no atomicity of operations in UFS and other
file systems it is possible that when you remove a file, your system can
crash between
On Oct 18, 2011, at 20:26, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Yes, but when scrub encounters uncorrectable errors, it doesn't attempt to
correct them. Fsck will do things like recover lost files into the
lost+found directory, and stuff like that...
You say recover lost files like you know that they're
On Oct 18, 2011, at 20:35, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
In fact, I saw, actual work started on this task about a month ago. So it's
not just planned, it's really in the works. Now we're talking open source
timelines here, which means, you'll get it when it's ready, and nobody
knows when that
On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:35, Brian Wilson wrote:
Where ZFS doesn't have an fsck command - and that really used to bug me - it
does now have a -F option on zpool import. To me it's the same functionality
for my environment - the ability to try to roll back to a 'hopefully' good
state and get
On Mon, September 26, 2011 14:55, Jesus Cea wrote:
[...]
real10m0.272s
user0m0.809s
sys 2m6.693s
10 minutes to diff 7.55 GB is... disappointing.
This machine uses a 2-mirror configurations, and there is no more
activity going on in the machine. ZPOOL version 29, ZFS version
On Mon, September 19, 2011 08:07, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
This one missing feature of ZFS, IMHO, does not result in a long way for
zfs to go in relation to netapp. I shut off my netapp 2 years ago in
favor of ZFS, because ZFS performs so darn much better, and has such
immensely greater
On Mon, August 15, 2011 12:25, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
Perhaps this is it. Pulled the recommendation from Intel's Solid-State
Drive 320 Series in Server Storage Applications whitepaper.
Section 4.1:
[...]
On the Intel SSD 320 Series, the spare capacity reserved at the
factory is 7% to
On Mon, June 27, 2011 15:24, Erik Trimble wrote:
[...]
I'm always kind of surprised that there hasn't been a movement to create
standardized crypto commands, like the various FP-specific commands that
are part of MMX/SSE/etc. That way, most of this could be done in
hardware seamlessly.
The
On Jun 27, 2011, at 17:16, Erik Trimble wrote:
Think about how things were done with the i386 and i387. That's what I'm
after. With modern CPU buses like AMD Intel support, plopping a
co-processor into another CPU socket would really, really help.
Given the amount of transistors that are
On Jun 27, 2011, at 18:32, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On 06/27/11 15:24, David Magda wrote:
Given the amount of transistors that are available nowadays I think
it'd be simpler to just create a series of SIMD instructions right
in/on general CPUs, and skip the whole co-processor angle.
see
On Jun 27, 2011, at 22:03, Fred Liu wrote:
FYI There is another thread named -- GPU acceleration of ZFS in this
list to discuss the possibility to utilize the power of GPGPU.
I posted here:
In a similar vein I recently came across SSLShader:
http://shader.kaist.edu/sslshader/
On Tue, June 14, 2011 08:15, Jim Klimov wrote:
Hello,
A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop,
and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding
another server in his small quiet apartment or changing the
desktop OS. According to his research, there are
On Jun 11, 2011, at 08:46, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
If you simply want to layer on some more FEC, there must be some standard
generic FEC utilities out there, right?
zfs send | fec /dev/...
Of course this will inflate the size of the data stream somewhat, but
improves the
On Jun 11, 2011, at 09:20, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Parity is just a really simple form of error detection. It's not very
useful for error correction. If you look into error correction codes,
you'll see there are many other codes which would be more useful for the
purposes of zfs send
On Jun 11, 2011, at 10:37, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: David Magda [mailto:dma...@ee.ryerson.ca]
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:38 AM
These parity files use a forward error correction-style system that can be
used to perform data verification, and allow recovery when data is lost
On Fri, June 10, 2011 07:47, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
#1 A single bit error causes checksum mismatch and then the whole data
stream is not receivable.
I wonder if it would be worth adding a (toggleable?) forward error
correction (FEC) [1] scheme to the 'zfs send' stream.
Even if we're
On Jun 2, 2011, at 20:50, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Also, if you have an SSD for cache device, you accelerate reads, and there
is absolutely no data risk. In the event of cache device failure,
performance degrades back to the normal level and everything continues
just fine.
Dropping back
On May 31, 2011, at 19:00, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk
Theoretically, you'll get a 50% read increase, but I doubt it'll be that
high in
practice.
What about writes?
The press embargo on Intel Z68 chipset has been lifted and so there's a bunch
of press on it. One feature called Smart Response Technology (SRT) will sound
familiar to users of ZFS:
Intel's SRT functions like an actual cache. Rather than caching individual
files, Intel focuses on frequently
On Apr 11, 2011, at 17:54, Brandon High wrote:
I suspect that the minimum memory for most moderately sized pools is
over 16GB. There has been a lot of discussion regarding how much
memory each dedup'd block requires, and I think it was about 250-270
bytes per block. 1TB of data (at max block
On Fri, April 8, 2011 10:06, Darren J Moffat wrote:
They may be storage appliances, but the user can not put their own
software on them. This limits the appliance to only the features that
Oracle decides to put on it.
Isn't that the very definition of an Appliance ?
Yes, but the OP wasn't
On Wed, April 6, 2011 10:51, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
I'm a big fan of rsync, in cronjobs or wherever. What it won't do is
properly preserve ZFS ACLs, and ZFS snapshots, though. I moved from using
rsync to using zfs send/receive for my backup scheme at home, and had
considerable trouble
On Wed, April 6, 2011 11:29, Gary Mills wrote:
People forget (c), the ability to set different filesystem options on
/var. You might want to have `setuid=off' for improved security, for
example.
Or better yet: exec=off,devices=off. Another handy one could be
compression=on (or a even
On Thu, March 31, 2011 09:22, Thierry Delaitre wrote:
I've had a power kill on a server and the V880 cannot now mount the main
root filesystem.
I can boot the server into single user mode from the network.
However, how can i rectify the corrupted ZFS disk ?
NOTICE:
spa_import_rootpool:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 02:03, Michael DeMan wrote:
The only remaining question would be the remaining crufts of legal
disposition. I could for instance see NetApp or somebody try and sue
ixSystems, but I have a really, really rough time seeing Oracle/LarryEllison
suing the FreeBSD foundation
On Wed, March 23, 2011 13:31, Linder, Doug wrote:
Toby Thain wrote:
Linder, Doug wrote:
Warning] From: v...@hostname.ourdomain.com
mailto:v...@hostname.ourdomain.com /directoryname Time: 3/23/2011
3:02:25 AM
/directoryname
Directory is a mount point to a different filesystem.
On Mar 22, 2011, at 21:09, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
Seeing that userland programs for *Solaris and derivatives (GUI,
daemons, tools, etc) is usually late compared to bleeding-edge Linux
distros (e.g. Ubuntu), with no particular dedicated team working on
improvement there, I'm guessing the
On Mar 20, 2011, at 09:26, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The long term acceptance for ZFS depends on how Oracle will behave past the
announced Solaris 11 is released. If they don't Opensource the related ZFS,
they will harm the future of ZFS. If they Opensource it again, there is still
a
On Mar 20, 2011, at 14:33, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
I hear from reliable sources that Apple is not doing anything with ZFS,
so I would not look there for leadership.
Given that one of the prominent (?) file system guys at Apple left to form his
own ZFS company, I figured that was the case even
On Mar 20, 2011, at 14:24, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
It all depends on the number of drives in the VDEV(s), traffic
patterns during resilver, speed VDEV fill, of drives etc. Still,
close to 6 days is a lot. Can you detail your configuration?
How many times do we have to rehash this? The
On Mar 20, 2011, at 18:02, Ian Collins wrote:
I didn't intend to start an argument, I was just very surprised the resilver
took so long.
ZFS is a relatively young file system, and it does a lot of things differently
than what has been done in the past. Personally I think arguments / debates
On Fri, March 18, 2011 08:28, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: David Magda [mailto:dma...@ee.ryerson.ca]
#2 is fixed in OpenSolaris as of snv_129:
The new limit is 1024--the same maximum number of groups as Windows
supports. Unlikely that it will be back ported to Solaris 10 though
On Mar 18, 2011, at 21:16, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
I think we all feel the same pain with Oracle's purchase of Sun.
FreeBSD that has commercial support for ZFS maybe?
Fbsd currently has a very old zpool version, not suitable for running with
SLOGs, since if you lose it, you may lose
On Thu, March 17, 2011 09:53, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Paul Kraus [mailto:p...@kraus-haus.org]
[...]
2. Unix / Solaris limitation of 16 / 32 group membership
3. ACL management (must be done on the Solaris side) and visibility
4. performance (especially with many small files)
We can
On Wed, March 16, 2011 10:08, Fred Liu wrote:
Yeah. But we are on Linux NFS client. ;-(
Is it doable to build SUN cp in Linux? Where can I find the source code?
Are you using NFSv4? Also, what version of GNU coreutils are you using
('cp' is usually part of the coreutils package)? What
On Mar 12, 2011, at 20:59, Tim Cook wrote:
2011/3/12 Fred Liu fred_...@issi.com
Tim,
Thanks.
Is there a mapping mechanism like what DataOnTap does to map the
permission/acl between NIS/LDAP and AD?
Yes.
http://www.unix.com/man-page/OpenSolaris/1m/idmap/
This appears to be only
On Thu, March 10, 2011 13:04, wessels wrote:
And make sure you align your NTFS partition regardless off the
underlying storage. Windows 2003 and before DONT do this by default, 7
and 2008 choose a default offset off 1Mb. But better check it in
advance with diskpart. Lastly format your NTFS
On Tue, March 1, 2011 11:11, Khushil Dep wrote:
I'd back that. X25E's are great but also look at the STECH ZeusIOPS as
well as the new Intel's.
STEC's products are not available to retail customers, only OEMs. (Unless
something has changed recently, in which case a link would be useful.)
On Feb 24, 2011, at 20:11, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
So, does anyone know which drives to choose for the next setup? Hitachis look
good so far, perhaps also seagates, but right now, I'm dubious about the
blacks.
There are people who have lost data on Seagates, and so swear they'll never
On Mon, February 7, 2011 14:12, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Hi al
Does anyone here that knows if the new 7K3000 drives from Hitachi uses 4k
sectors or not? The docs say Sector size (variable, Bytes/sector): 512,
but since it's variable, any idea what it might be? I'm planning to
[...]
This
On Fri, February 4, 2011 09:30, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
But in most cases we don't need TRIM to be so perfect. My
current idea is to delay TRIM operation for some number of transaction
groups. For example if block is freed in txg=5, I'll send TRIM for it
after txg=15 (if it wasn't
On Jan 26, 2011, at 19:48, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
The scenario is as thus: We have a 50TB storage unit which was built to be an
archive, but lately, scientists have been using this for a fileserver for
modelling. Pracitaclly, this means 50+ processes doing more or less random
i/o to
On Jan 21, 2011, at 22:36, Tobias Lauridsen wrote:
it is possible to se my hdd total time it have been in use so I can switch
to a new one before it gets too many hours old
Any hard drive can die at any time. If such a feature exists, it wouldn't be
wise to rely on it.
I've had a drive die
On Jan 14, 2011, at 14:32, Peter Taps wrote:
Also, another related question. Why 256 bits was chosen and not 128 bits or
512 bits? I guess Sha512 may be an overkill. In your formula, how many blocks
of data would be needed to have one collision using Sha128?
There are two ways to get 128
On Thu, January 13, 2011 09:00, David Strom wrote:
Moving to a new SAN, both LUNs will not be accessible at the same time.
Thanks for the several replies I've received, sounds like the dd to tape
mechanism is broken for zfs send, unless someone knows otherwise or has
some trick?
I'm just
On Mon, January 10, 2011 02:41, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
On Sun, Jan 9 at 22:54, Peter Taps wrote:
Thank you all for your help. I am the OP.
I haven't looked at the link that talks about the probability of
collision. Intuitively, I still wonder how the chances of collision
can be so low. We
On Fri, January 7, 2011 04:26, Darren J Moffat wrote:
On 06/01/2011 23:07, David Magda wrote:
Would running on recent T-series servers, which have have on-die crypto
units, help any in this regard?
The on chip SHA-256 implementation is not yet used see:
http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry
On Fri, January 7, 2011 01:42, Michael DeMan wrote:
Then - there is the other side of things. The 'black swan' event. At
some point, given percentages on a scenario like the example case above,
one simply has to make the business justification case internally at their
own company about
On Fri, January 7, 2011 14:33, Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 01/ 7/11 02:13 PM, David Magda wrote:
Given the above: most people are content enough to trust Fletcher to not
have data corruption, but are worried about SHA-256 giving 'data
corruption' when it comes de-dupe? The entire rest
On Thu, January 6, 2011 14:44, Peter Taps wrote:
I have been told that the checksum value returned by Sha256 is almost
guaranteed to be unique. In fact, if Sha256 fails in some case, we have a
bigger problem such as memory corruption, etc. Essentially, adding
verification to sha256 is an
On Jan 6, 2011, at 15:57, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Fletcher is faster than SHA-256, so I think that must be what you're
asking about: can Fletcher+Verification be faster than
Sha256+NoVerification? Or do you have some other goal?
Would running on recent T-series servers, which have have
On Dec 22, 2010, at 08:43, Jabbar wrote:
I was thinking of buying a couple of SSD's until I found out that
Trim is
only supported with SATA drives. I'm not sure if TRIM will work with
ZFS. I
was concerned that with trim support the SSD life and write
throughput will
get affected.
Doesn't
On Dec 22, 2010, at 09:55, Krunal Desai wrote:
I actually bought a SF-1200 based OCZ Agility 2 (60G) for use as a
ZIL/L2ARC (haven't installed it yet however, definitely jumped the gun
on this purchase...) based on some recommendations from fellow users.
Why are these not recommended? Is it
On Tue, December 14, 2010 09:37, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
NetBSD and OpenBSD will also be offering zfs.
NetBSD has a porting effort, but it is unlikely that OpenBSD will ever
have it [1]:
* Will ZFS be added to OpenBSD?
Not unless someone can convince Oracle to change the license for it to
On Tue, November 30, 2010 14:09, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Bug ID: 6907687 zfs pool is not automatically fixed when disk are
brought back online or after boot
An IDR patch already exists, but no official patch yet.
Do you know if these bugs are fixed in Solaris 11 Express ?
It says it was
On Mon, November 29, 2010 04:50, taemun wrote:
I would urge you to consider a 2^n + p number of disks. For raidz, p = 1,
so an acceptable number of total drives is 3, 5 or 9. raidz2 has two
parity drives, hence 4, 6 or 10. These vdev widths ensure that the data
blocks are divided into nicer
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 out, the next gen Sandforce should be out as well. Unless
Intel
does something
On Fri, November 26, 2010 08:16, Pavel Heimlich wrote:
Are there some zfs / OS parameters I could set so that my usb drive with
zfs on it would meet the expectations one has from a removable drive?
(i.e. safe to remove +-anytime)
Nope. Most file systems on Unix don't have the expectation. You
On Tue, November 23, 2010 08:53, taemun wrote:
zdb -C shows an shift value on each vdev in my pool, I was just wondering
if it is vdev specific, or pool wide. Google didn't seem to know.
I'm considering a mixed pool with some advanced format (4KB sector)
drives, and some normal 512B sector
On Thu, November 18, 2010 05:11, Moazam Raja wrote:
I tested the Fusion IO MLC based PCI-e cards on OpenSolaris and found
the performance to be amazing. Hopefully Fusion IO will release
supported drivers for Solaris 11 Express and onwards. The Fusion IO
MLC card was giving me around 500MB/s
On Nov 16, 2010, at 05:09, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Both CCM[1] and GCM[2] are provided so that if one turns out to have
flaws hopefully the other will still be available for use safely
even though they are roughly similar styles of modes.
On systems without hardware/cpu support for Galios
On Tue, November 16, 2010 22:56, Jim Dunham wrote:
Although ZFS is always on disk consistent, many applications are not
filesystem consistent. To be filesystem consistent, an application by
design must issue careful writes and/or synchronized filesystem
operations. Not knowing this fact, or
On Nov 15, 2010, at 14:36, David Magda wrote:
Looking forwarding to playing with it. Some questions:
1. Is it possible to do a 'zfs create -o encryption=off
tank/darren/music' after the above command? I don't much care if my
MP3s
are encrypted. :)
2. Both CCM and GCM modes of operation
On Mon, November 15, 2010 14:14, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Today Oracle Solaris 11 Express was released and is available for
download[1], this release includes on disk encryption support for ZFS.
Using ZFS encryption support can be as easy as this:
# zfs create -o encryption=on tank/darren
On Nov 13, 2010, at 18:53, Ian Collins wrote:
How do I make the change take affect?
Add the extra blocks as another volume, see
http://blogs.sun.com/chrisg/entry/don_t_reboot_to_add
If the OP has a support contract he may want to contact Oracle and get
placed on the list for:
On Nov 11, 2010, at 15:08, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Any opinions? stories? other models I missed?
Other questions:
1) The ZIL will be small compared to the size of these, can I use
the rest as L2ARC or is that not such a good idea?
2) Will ZFS align the ZIL writes in such a way that those
On Fri, November 5, 2010 11:16, Bryan Hodgson wrote:
[...]
Do ZFS / mpxio / cfgadm issues still make mpxio an iffy proposition
as a reliability enhancement?
Is there a patch set that addresses ZFS / cfgadm / mpxio issues for
s10u7?
Have you considered using S10u9, but simply create pools
On Fri, October 29, 2010 10:00, Eric Schrock wrote:
On Oct 29, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Jesus Cea wrote:
When a file is deleted, its block are freed, and that situation is
committed in the next txg. Fine. Now those blocks are free, and can be
used in new block requests. Now new requests come and
On Oct 28, 2010, at 04:44, Jan Hellevik wrote:
So, my best action would be to delete the zpool.cache and then do a
zpool import?
Should I try to match disks with cables as it was previously
connected before I do the import? Will that make any difference?
BTW, ZFS version is 22.
I'd say
On Wed, October 27, 2010 15:07, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
- Original Message -
Ok, so I did it again... I moved my disks around without doing export
first.
I promise - after this I will always export before messing with the
disks. :-)
Anyway - the problem. I decided to rearrange
On Oct 27, 2010, at 21:17, Brandon High wrote:
You may be able to replace more than one drive at the same time this
way. I've never tried it, and you should test before attempting to do
so.
If the OP doesn't have a test system available, it may be possible to
try this multi-replace
On Mon, October 25, 2010 08:38, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ian Collins
Sun hardware? Then you get all your support from one vendor.
+1
Sun hardware costs more, but it's worth it, if you want
On Fri, October 22, 2010 08:07, Tony MacDoodle wrote:
Is it possible to have a shared LUN between 2 servers using zfs? The
server can see both LUN's but when I do an impoer I get:
[...]
When I do import it using the -f I can't see the files created on the
other node.
No, it is not possible.
On Wed, October 13, 2010 21:26, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
I highly endorse mirrors for nearly all purposes.
Are you a member of BAARF?
http://www.miracleas.com/BAARF/BAARF2.html
:)
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Tue, October 12, 2010 18:31, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, Saxon, Will wrote:
Another article concerning Sandforce performance:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3667/6
[...]
When I read this I thought that it kind of eliminated Sandforce
drives from consideration as SLOG
Seems that the bug for ZFS data set encryption is now in a state of
10-Fix Delivered:
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4854202
Via:
http://sparcv9.blogspot.com/2010/10/zfs-crypto-integrated.html
Thank you Mr. Moffat et al. Hopefully the rest of us
On Sep 17, 2010, at 20:32, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
When did that become default? Should I *ever* say 30 sec anymore?
June 8, 2010, revision 12586:b118bbd65be9:
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/history/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/txg.c
Seems that things have been cleared up:
NetApp (NASDAQ: NTAP) today announced that both parties have agreed to
dismiss their pending patent litigation, which began in 2007 between Sun
Microsystems and NetApp. Oracle and NetApp seek to have the lawsuits
dismissed without prejudice. The terms
1 - 100 of 357 matches
Mail list logo
