Re: [zfs-discuss] Mount External USB cdrom on zfs
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM, iman habibi iman.hab...@gmail.com wrote: Dear support when i connect my external usb dvdrom to the sparc machine which has installed solaris 10u6 based zfs file system,,it return this error: bash-3.00# mount /dev/dsk/c1t0d0s0 /dvd/ Jan 27 11:08:41 global ufs: NOTICE: mount: not a UFS magic number (0x0) mount: /dev/dsk/c1t0d0s0 is not this fstype On Solaris, by default mount assumes that the file system type to be mounted is UFS. Basically, when mounting anything other than UFS, you need to specify what it is. The two exceptions are: a) When the vfstab can give information about what file system type to expect, or b) When using zfs mount (which only mounts zfs file systems) So essentially you need to specify the file system type on the mount command, like this: mount -F hsfs -r /dev/dsk/c1t0d0s0 /dvd/ The -r is for read-only. You can also (optionally) add a line to your /etc/vfstab file, like this: /dev/dsk/c1t0d0s0 - /dvd hsfs - no ro With this in place you can then mount the disk using: mount /dvd (It will learn the device, read-only flag, and the file system type from /etc/vfstab automatically) Of course I am wondering why you don't use the auto-mounter. There are of course other things you could do. You could change the default file system type in /etc/default/fs, but that is not recommended. You could write a little script to mount disks. etc etc etc. For more info, read man mount and man vfstab Cheers _Johan -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenSolaris better Than Solaris10u6 with requards to ARECA Raid Card
There is an update in build 105, but it is only pertaining to the Raid Management tool: Issues Resolved: BUG/RFE:6776690http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6776690Areca raid management util doesn't work on solaris Files Changed: update:usr/src/uts/intel/io/scsi/adapters/arcmsr/arcmsr.chttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/intel/io/scsi/adapters/arcmsr/arcmsr.c update:usr/src/uts/intel/io/scsi/adapters/arcmsr/arcmsr.hhttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/intel/io/scsi/adapters/arcmsr/arcmsr.h On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Orvar Korvar knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com wrote: Ive read about some Areca bug(?) being fixed in SXCE b105? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] mirror rpool
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:58 AM, mijenix mije...@gmx.ch wrote: yes, that's the way zpool likes it I think I've to understand how (Open)Solaris create disks or how the partition thing works under OSol. Do you know any guide or howto? http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-solaris-disk-device-names-work.html -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] separate home partition?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Johan Hartzenberg jhart...@gmail.comwrote: I have this situation working and use my shared pool between Linux and Solaris. Note: The shared pool needs to reside on a whole physical disk or on a primary fdisk partition, Unless something changed since I last checked, Solaris' support for Logical Partitions are... not quite there yet. I just chanced apon the following in the SNV Build105 Change logs: PSARC case 2006/379 : Solaris on Extended partition BUG/RFE:6644364http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6644364Extended partitions need to be supported on Solaris BUG/RFE:6713308http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6713308Macro UNUSED in fdisk.h needs to be changed since id 100 is Novell Netware 286's partition ID BUG/RFE:6713318http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6713318Need to differentiate between solaris old partition and Linux swap BUG/RFE:6745175http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6745175Partitions can be created using fdisk table with invalid partition line by fdisk -F BUG/RFE:6745740http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6745740Multiple extended partition can be created by fdisk -A Files Changed: update:usr/src/Makefile.linthttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/Makefile.lint update:usr/src/Targetdirshttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/Targetdirs update:usr/src/cmd/boot/installgrub/Makefilehttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/boot/installgrub/Makefile update:usr/src/cmd/boot/installgrub/installgrub.chttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/boot/installgrub/installgrub.c update:usr/src/cmd/devfsadm/disk_link.chttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/devfsadm/disk_link.c update:usr/src/cmd/fdisk/Makefilehttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/fdisk/Makefile update:usr/src/cmd/fdisk/fdisk.chttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/fdisk/fdisk.c update:usr/src/cmd/format/Makefilehttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/format/Makefile update:usr/src/cmd/format/menu_fdisk.chttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/cmd/format/menu_fdisk.c update:usr/src/lib/Makefilehttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/lib/Makefile update:usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWarc/prototype_i386http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWarc/prototype_i386 update:usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWarcr/prototype_i386http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWarcr/prototype_i386 update:usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWcsl/prototype_i386http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWcsl/prototype_i386 update:usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWcslr/prototype_i386http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWcslr/prototype_i386 update:usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWhea/prototype_i386http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWhea/prototype_i386 update:usr/src/uts/common/io/cmlb.chttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/io/cmlb.c update:usr/src/uts/common/io/scsi/targets/sd.chttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/io/scsi/targets/sd.c update:usr/src/uts/common/sys/cmlb_impl.hhttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/sys/cmlb_impl.h update:usr/src/uts/common/sys/dkio.hhttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/sys/dkio.h update:usr/src/uts/common/sys/dktp/fdisk.hhttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/sys/dktp/fdisk.h update:usr/src/uts/common/sys/scsi/targets/sddef.hhttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/sys/scsi/targets/sddef.h update:usr/src/uts/common/xen/io/xdf.chttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/xen/io/xdf.c update:usr/src/uts/intel/io/dktp/disk/cmdk.chttp://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/intel/io/dktp/disk/cmdk.c create:usr/src/lib/libfdisk/Makefile create:usr/src/lib/libfdisk/i386/Makefile create:usr/src/lib/libfdisk/i386/libfdisk.c create:usr/src/lib/libfdisk/i386/libfdisk.h create:usr/src/lib/libfdisk/i386/llib-lfdisk create:usr/src/lib/libfdisk/i386/mapfile-vers -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS capable GRUB install from within Linux?
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:28 PM, David Abrahams d...@boostpro.com wrote: FWIW, I managed to build a source merge of the solaris grub-0.97 (with ZFS capability) and ubuntu's latest copy of grub-0.97 (with whatever patches they've backported into it). The sources are available at http://groups.google.com/group/zfs-fuse/web/grub.merge-0.97.tar.gz Of course, I'm not sure yet whether that's enough to boot linux from ZFS. In addition, you would have to build a Linux Miniroot (or whatever it is called) which supports ZFS. I've seen posts about work in this regard by early explorers a long time ago, but thought I'd wait till a few people actually got it to work before I looked at it any more! I quick google found: http://groups.google.com/group/zfs-fuse/browse_thread/thread/3e781ace9de600bc/230ca0608235e216?lnk=gstq=bootrnum=1pli=1 -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] separate home partition?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:10 AM, noz sf2...@gmail.com wrote: Here's my solution: (1) n...@holodeck:~# zpool create epool mirror c4t1d0 c4t2d0 c4t3d0 n...@holodeck:~# zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT epool 69K 15.6G18K /epool rpool 3.68G 11.9G72K /rpool rpool/ROOT 2.81G 11.9G18K legacy rpool/ROOT/opensolaris 2.81G 11.9G 2.68G / rpool/dump 383M 11.9G 383M - rpool/export 632K 11.9G19K /export rpool/export/home612K 11.9G19K /export/home rpool/export/home/noz594K 11.9G 594K /export/home/noz rpool/swap 512M 12.4G 21.1M - n...@holodeck:~# (2) n...@holodeck:~# zfs snapshot -r rpool/exp...@now (3) n...@holodeck:~# zfs send -R rpool/exp...@now /tmp/export_now (4) n...@holodeck:~# zfs destroy -r -f rpool/export (5) n...@holodeck:~# zfs recv -d epool /tmp/export_now The above is very dangerous, if it will even work. The output of the zfs send is redirected to /tmp, which is a ramdisk. If you have enough space (RAM + Swap), it will work, but if there is a reboot or crash before the zfs receive completes then everything is gone. In stead, do the following: (2) n...@holodeck:~# zfs snapshot -r rpool/exp...@now (3) n...@holodeck:~# zfs send -R rpool/exp...@now | zfs recv -d epool (4) Check that all the data looks OK in epool (5) n...@holodeck:~# zfs destroy -r -f rpool/export -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] separate home partition?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 9:55 AM, hardware technician figh...@yahoo.comwrote: I want to create a separate home, shared, read/write zfs partition on a tri-boot OpenSolaris, Ubuntu, and CentOS system. I have successfully created and exported the zpools that I would like to use, in Ubuntu using zfs-fuse. However, I boot into OpenSolaris, and I type zpool import with no options. The only pool I see to import is on the primary partition, and I haven't been able to see or import the pool that is on the extended partition. I have tried importing using the name, and ID. In OpenSolaris /dev/dsk/c3d0 shows 15 slices, so I think the slices are there, but then I type format, select the disk, and the partition option, but it doesn't show (zfs) partitions from linux. In format, the fdisk option recognizes the (zfs) linux partitions. The partition that I was able to import is on the first partition, and is named c3d0p1, and is not a slice. Are there any ideas how I could import the other pool? I have this situation working and use my shared pool between Linux and Solaris. Note: The shared pool needs to reside on a whole physical disk or on a primary fdisk partition, Unless something changed since I last checked, Solaris' support for Logical Partitions are... not quite there yet. P.S. I blogged about my setup (Linux + Solaris with a Shared ZFS pool) here http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com/search?q=zfs-fuse+linux ... However this was a long time ago and I don't know whether the statement about Grub ZFS support in point 3 is still true. Aparently some bugs pertaining to time stomping between ubuntu and solaris has been fixed, so you may not need to do step 4. An Alternative to step 4 is to run this in Solaris: pfexec /usr/sbin/rtc -z UTC In addition, at point nr 7, use bootadm list-menu to find out where Solaris has decided to save the grub menu.lst file. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] separate home partition?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 6:25 PM, noz sf2...@gmail.com wrote: The above is very dangerous, if it will even work. The output of the zfs send is redirected to /tmp, which is a ramdisk. If you have enough space (RAM + Swap), it will work, but if there is a reboot or crash before the zfs receive completes then everything is gone. In stead, do the following: (2) n...@holodeck:~# zfs snapshot -r rpool/exp...@now (3) n...@holodeck:~# zfs send -R rpool/exp...@now | zfs recv -d epool (4) Check that all the data looks OK in epool (5) n...@holodeck:~# zfs destroy -r -f rpool/export Thanks for the tip. Is there an easy way to do your revised step 4? Can I use a diff or something similar? e.g. diff rpool/export epool/export Personally I would just browse around the structure, open a few files at random, and consider it done. But that is me, and my data, of which I _DO_ make backups. You could use find to create an index of all the files and save these in files, and compare those. Depending on exactly how you do the find, you might be able to just diff the files. Of course if you want to be realy pedantic, you would do cd /rpool/export; find . | xargs cksum /rpool_checksums cd /epool/export; find . | xargs cksum /epool_checksums diff /?pool_checksums But be prepared to wait a very very very long time for the two checksum processes to run. Unless you have very little data. Cheers, _J -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Import Problem
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Weldon S Godfrey 3 wel...@excelsus.comwrote: If memory serves me right, sometime around 12:34am, Michael McKnight told me: I have tried import -f, import -d, import -f -d ... nothing works. Did you try zpool export 1st? He did say he was doing zpool replace commands when it went downhill -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] separate home partition?
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 7:33 AM, scott new.mail.ba...@gmail.com wrote: do you mean a pool on a SEPARATE partition? -- That is what I do. In particular, I have: fdisk partition 1 = Solaris partition type 0xbf = rpool = 40 GB fdisk partition 2 = MSDOS partition type = SHARED zpool = 190 GB fdisk partition 3 = 30 GB Extended partition. Logical partition 5 used for Ubuntu Root, Logical Partition 6 = Ubuntu Swap. This leaves me with the option of creating an fdisk partition 4 for another operating system. Disadvantages: 1. Partitioning means ZFS does not turn on write-caching. 2. Also there is wasted space. (Partitioning implies pre-allocating space, which means you have to dedicate space that you may not use) Advantages: 1. I can import the SHARED zpool under Ubuntu and thus I have the perfect shared space solution between the two operating systems, without having to worry about clashing mount points which would be present if I tried to import the root pool. 2. If I needed to re-install, I would only wipe/destroy/touch the OS, not my user data. I have not yet made the move from Solaris Express to OpenSolaris, so I am still using Live Upgrade. I generally upgrade to every new release, sometimes to my sorrow. But it does not touch my SHARED data zpool. One other thing: I started a convention of using all-capital names for my ZFS pool names. It makes them stand out nicely in the output of df and mount, but in particular ir distinguishes nicely between the pool name and the mountpoint because I then mount the SHARED pool on /shared. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Possible to switch SATA ports?
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Orvar Korvar knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com wrote: Ok, so I could partition a drive into two parts, and treat each of the partitions as one drive? And then I exchange one partition at a time with a whole new drive? That sounds neat. I must format the drive into two zfs partitions? Or UFS partitions? ZFS doesnt have partitions? And another thing, is it better to do a cp * or do zfs send when copying data from old zpool to new zpool? What is the differences? No, my suggestion is to 1. Connect four of the five 1TB drives to the available SATA ports. 2. Put the 5th one in an external USB enclosure, or find another SATA controller. 3. Then create the new pool of 5x1TB drives. 4. Then ZFS-send the data from the old pool to the new pool 5. Export the old pool, shut down and remove the old disks. 6. Move the disk which is on eSATA, or External USB or wherever to one of the freed-up USB ports. 7. Start up. You are done. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Possible to switch SATA ports?
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Orvar Korvar knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com wrote: I have a ZFS raid and wonder if it is possible to move the ZFS raid around from SATA port to another? Ive heard that someone assembled the SATA connections differently and the ZFS raid wouldnt work. Say that I have 8 SATA port controller card with 4 drives in a ZFS raid. Sata ports 0-3 are occupied and Sata ports 4-7 are empty. Could I move SATA connection nr 0 to the SATA port nr 4? -- Best would be if you could find another SATA port, or even an exernal USB enclosure, to use temporarily, even on any other controller. Then you can create the raidz 5x1TB drives, zfs send the data, and then get rid of the old drives without damaging the old pool. If anything does go wrong during the process, your old pool would still be in tact. Once the data transfer is complete, shut down and remove the old disks and then connect the drive which was temporarily on another controller onto a SATA controller as its final configuration. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to create a basic new filesystem?
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 8:00 PM, dick hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl wrote: On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:36:07 PST Uwe Dippel udip...@gmail.com wrote: [i]If you want to add the entire Solaris partition to the zfs pool as a mirror, use zpool attach -f rpool c1d0s0 c2d0s2[/i] So my mistake in the first place (see first post), in short, was only the last digit: I ought to have used the complete drive (slice 2), instead of *thinking* that it is untouchable, and zfs/zpool would set up s0 properly to be used? Dick, it seems we have to get used to the idea, that slice 2 is touchable, after all. That may be, but all my mirror disks are like c0d0s0 c0d1s0. s0 taking up the whole disk. On some there is a s2 on some there isn't. Also, SUN itself mentions s0 in explaining zfs root as bootable. There is no mention of s2. As far as I'm concerned bootable ZFS is on s0; non-bootable drives have an EFI label ;-) I believe there are some bugs at present pertaining to booting form ZFS which, in that special case, requires you to use slices. Where I gave examples for adding p0 or s2 to a pool, I was not thinking about bootable pools. The ZFS admin guide has got examples on how to add a mirror to a pool and explains the gotchas / workarounds for these issues, but from memory you have to read the whole guide to get all the information. I have not looked recently to see whether it got updated / re-organized. From memory, the issues are related to the start / offset of the pool on the disk which is added to the pool as a mirror, as well as the manual instalation of the bootblock on the disk added as a mirror. I can't remember the details now, but the first requires that a slice be created manually with the correct offset, rather than using the whole disk. I have not tried it yet and don't know the details of how to create this slice, or how the problem manifests itself. Right now I don't have time to search for this information, but if the question is still open by the 10th of January I'll look into it, though I'm sure someone else here will remember the details better than me. So to re-itterate, the exception is when adding disks to a bootable root-pool as a mirror. Otherwise, it is simple. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to create a basic new filesystem?
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:13 PM, dick hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl wrote: On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:02:31 PST Uwe Dippel udip...@gmail.com wrote: Now I modified the slice s0, so that is doesn't overlap with s2 (the whole disk) any longer: Part TagFlag Cylinders SizeBlocks 0 rootwm 3 - 10432 159.80GB(10430/0/0) 335115900 1 unassignedwm 00 (0/0/0) 0 2 backupwu 0 - 10441 159.98GB(10442/0/0) 335501460 As mentioned previously you do not need to fiddle with partitions and slices if you don't want to use less than the entire disk. If you want to add the entire Solaris partition to the zfs pool as a mirror, use zpool attach -f rpool c1d0s0 c2d0s2 If you want to add the entire physical disk to the pool as a mirror, use zpool attach rpool c1d0s0 c2d0p0 If you want to Extend the pool using the space in the entire Solaris partition, use zpool add -f rpool c2d0s2 If you want to Extend the pool using the entire physical disk, use zpool add rpool c2d0p0 The -f to force is required to override the bug about s2 overlapping with other slices. The above assume you have not modified s2 to be anything other than the entire Solaris partition, as is the default. The only time to use anything other than s2 or p0 is when you specifically want to use less than the whole partition or disk. In that case you need to define slices/partitions. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Removing Disks from pools
Hello ZFS gurus and fellow fans. As we all know ZFS does not _yet_ support relayout of pools. I want to know whether there is any hope for this to become available in the near future? From my outside view it sounds like it should be possible to set a flag to stop allocating new blocks from a specific device, then start a job to touch each block on the subject device, causing each block to be CoW moved to one of the other disks until there are no more blocks left on that device and then finally to clear the device's pool membership status. Similarly, adding a device into a raid-Z vdev seems easy to do: All future writes include that device in the list of devices from which to allocate blocks. But I admit, I am no programmer, so please do enlighten me :-) -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and aging
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Thanos McAtos mca...@ics.forth.gr wrote: My problems are 2: 1) I don't know how to properly age a file-system. As already said, I need traces of a decade's workload to properly do this, and to the best of my knowledge there is no easy way to do this automatically. 2) I know very little of ZFS. To be honest, I have no idea what to expect. Maybe I'm doing aging the wrong way or ZFS suffers from aging when is has to allocate blocks for writes/updates and not on recovery. I would expect the fill level of the pool to be a much bigger factor than the age of the file system. However an old but very empty file system may have its data blocks spread far apart (large gaps in between). So a new empty file system may have all its allocated data blocks at the start of a disk, and a old empty file system may be scattered all over the disk. However, since we are talking about more space than data, and ZFS only rebuilds the blocks which are in use, this is a special case and while the difference my be relatively large, it will likely be small real difference. But I am speculating. The CoW nature of ZFS will probably make it very hard to consistently create a fragmented file system!!! -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Need Help Invalidating Uberblock
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:43 PM, casper@sun.com wrote: When current uber-block A is detected to point to a corrupted on-disk data, how would zpool import (or any other tool for that matter) quickly and safely know that, once it found an older uber-block B that it points to a set of blocks which does not include any blocks that has since been freed and re-allocated and, thus, corrupted? Eg, without scanning the entire on-disk structure? Without a scrub, you mean? Not possible, except the first few uberblocks (blocks aren't used until a few uberblocks later) Casper Does that mean that each of the last few-minus-1 uberblocks point to a consistent version of the file system? Does few have a definition? -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Need Help Invalidating Uberblock
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Ross myxi...@googlemail.com wrote: I know Eric mentioned the possibility of zpool import doing more of this kind of thing, and he said that it's current inability to do this will be fixed, but I don't know if it's an official project, RFE or bug. Can anybody shed some light on this? See Jeff's post on Oct 10, and Eric's follow up later that day in this thread: http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=289537#289537 -- When current uber-block A is detected to point to a corrupted on-disk data, how would zpool import (or any other tool for that matter) quickly and safely know that, once it found an older uber-block B that it points to a set of blocks which does not include any blocks that has since been freed and re-allocated and, thus, corrupted? Eg, without scanning the entire on-disk structure? -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Split responsibility for data with ZFS
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net wrote: 0. The reports I read were not useless in the way some have stated, because for example Mike sampled his own observations: [snip] I don't see when the single-LUN SAN corruption problems were fixed. I think the supposed ``silent FC bit flipping'' basis for the ``use multiple SAN LUN's'' best-practice is revoltingly dishonest, that we _know_ better. I'm not saying devices aren't guilty---Sun's sun4v IO virtualizer was documented as guilty of ignoring cache flushes to inflate performance just like the loomingly-unnamed models of lying SATA drives: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2008-October/051735.html Is a storage-stack-related version this problem the cause of lost single-LUN SAN pools? maybe, maybe not, but either way we need an end-to-end solution. I don't currently see an end-to-end solution to this pervasive blame-the-device mantra every time a pool goes bad. I keep digging through the archives to post messages like this because I feel like everyone only wants to have happy memories, and that it's going to bring about a sad end. Thank you. There is so much unsupported claims and noise on both sides that everybody is sounding like a bunch of fanboys. The only bit that I understand about why HW raid might be bad is that if it had access to the disks behind a HW RAID LUN, then _IF_ zfs were to encounter corrupted data in a read, it will probably be able to re-construct that data. This is at the cost of doing the parity calculations on a general purpose CPU, and then sending that parity data, as well as the data to write, across the wire. Some of that cost may be offset against Raid-Z's optimizations over raid-5 in some situations, but all of this is pretty much if-then-maybe type situations. I also understand that HW raid arrays have some vulnerabilities and weaknesses, but those seem to be offset against ZFS' notorious instability during error conditions. I say notorious, because of all the open bug reports and reports on the list of I/O hanging and/or systems panicing while waiting for ZFS to realize that something has gone wrong. I think if this last point can be addressed - make ZFS respond MUCH faster to failures, then it will go a long way to make ZFS be more readily adopted. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware Raid Vs ZFS implementation on Sun X4150/X4450
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Aaron Blew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've done some basic testing with a X4150 machine using 6 disks in a RAID 5 and RAID Z configuration. They perform very similarly, but RAIDZ definitely has more system overhead. In many cases this won't be a big deal, but if you need as many CPU cycles as you can muster, hardware RAID may be your better choice. Some people keep stressing the point that HW raid does not include snapshots or what ever other features, or does so at cost, or ... or ... or . It seems to me like we assume that the above poster intended or implied the use of another file system on the HW raid system. The poster above did not specify a file system, so I may as well assume the comparisons is between using ZFS with JBOD vs ZFS on HW-raid. Then the features available to the administrator are essentially the same. Not the question becomes: What are the pros and cons for each? I have not tested this, but I would assume that the HW raid (forget about cheap motherboard chipset integrated fake-raid) will save some CPU time because the raid controller has got a dedicated processor to do the stripe parity calculations. In addition the ZFS routines may have an easier time ITO selecting which disk to store the data on (only one disk to choose from). On the other hand, ZFS promises better fault detection, but presently this is temptered by several open bugs against ZFS during situations where degraded pools are present, eg pools freezing, etc. HW raid seem to have this sort of situation under control. Some HW raids may offer re-layout without losing data. ZFS does not (yet) offer this. ZFS claims better write performance in scenarios where less than a full stripe width is updated, and raid5 suffers from the write-hole problem. Nicely defined here: http://blog.dentarg.net/2007/1/10/raid5-write-hole ZFS updates are atomic - you never need to fsck the file system. ZFS will work regardless of whether or not you have a HW raid disk subsystem. So... what other benefits has ZFS got (as defined in my second paragraph) For what it is worth, have a look at my ZFS feature wishlist / AKA what it would take to make ZFS _THE_ last word in storage management: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com/2008/07/zfs-missing-features.html _J -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Fwd: [osol-announce] IMPT: Do not use SXCE Build 102
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Jeff Bonwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: These are the conditions: (1) The bug is specific to the root pool. Other pools are unaffected. (2) It is triggered by doing a 'zpool online' while I/O is in flight. (3) Item (2) can be triggered by syseventd. (4) The bug is new in build 102. Builds 101 and earlier are fine. I believe the following should be a viable workaround until build 103: (1) svcadm disable -t sysevent (2) Don't run zpool online on your root pool Jeff Hi Jeff, Thank you for the details. A few more questions: Does booting into build 102 do I zpool online on the root pool? And the above disable -t is temporary till the next reboot - any specific reason for doing it that way? And last question: What do I loose when I disable sysevent? Thank you, _Johan -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best SXCE version for ZFS Home Server
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Vincent Boisard [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: OTOH - if you don't know OpenSolaris well enough, you're better off either picking an earlier release that has proven to have very few relevant warts - usually based on a recommendation for other, more experieced, users. Or you could go with the commercial, rock solid release called Solaris U6 (Update 6) recently released. Where can I find advice on these earlier versions with few relevant warts. When I look at forums, I see good and bad for each release. Also, S10U6 does not have features that I need (Zones ZFS cloning). Also, as I have no support contract with sun (home user), I am not sure if I will get patches or not. If Zone Cloning via ZFS snapshots is the only feature you miss in S10u6, then you should reconsider. Writing a script to implement this yourself will require only a little experimentation. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 10u6 any patches yet?
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Vincent Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Just wondering if anyone knows of a patch released for 10u6? I realize this is OT but want to test my new ability with ZFS root to do lucreate, patch the alternate BE, and luactivate it. Send me an explorer and I will run a patch report for you. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs (u)mount conundrum with non-existent mountpoint
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Michael Schuster [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Mark J Musante wrote: Hi Michael, Did you try doing an export/import of tank? no - that would make it unavailable for use right? I don't think I can (easily) do that during production hours. Can you please post the output from: zfs get all tank/schuster/ilb -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Enabling load balance with zfs
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Brian Hechinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If what the OP is looking for is redundant but not nessesarily exact copies (he only wants the last X days on the backup disk, for example) he may want to consider looking into SAM. The OP described a solution where if one disk fails, only SOME of the files are lost, thus a Non-Redundant solution. I Quote: I would like to set this pair of disk as a zpool, and would like to spread one file to one disk, and the other file to the other disk. Is it possible to configure the zpool, with both disks, and set the file balancing? I want this configuration to keep some files if one of the disks is distroyed (for some reason). -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] DNLC and ARC
DNLC seems to be independent. From my laptop, which has only got ZFS file systems (Two ZPOOLs), the stats are: $ kstat -n dnlcstats module: unixinstance: 0 name: dnlcstats class:misc crtime 25.772681029 dir_add_abort 0 dir_add_max 0 dir_add_no_memory 0 dir_cached_current 0 dir_cached_total0 dir_entries_cached_current 0 dir_fini_purge 0 dir_hits0 dir_misses 0 dir_reclaim_any 0 dir_reclaim_last0 dir_remove_entry_fail 0 dir_remove_space_fail 0 dir_start_no_memory 0 dir_update_fail 0 double_enters 256 *enters 29871 hits5057854 --- Looks Good! misses 27737* negative_cache_hits 88995 pick_free 0 pick_heuristic 0 pick_last 0 purge_all 1 purge_fs1 0 purge_total_entries 22117 purge_vfs 79 purge_vp74 snaptime14043.559161769 On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Marcelo Leal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, In ZFS the DNLC concept is gone, or is in ARC too? I mean, all the cache in ZFS is ARC right? I was thinking if we can tune the DNLC in ZFS like in UFS.. if we have too *many* files and directories, i guess we can have a better performance having all the metadata cached, and that is even more important in NFS operations. DNLC is LRU right? And ARC should be totally dynamic, but as in another thread here, i think reading a *big* file can mess with the whole thing. Can we hold an area in memory for DNLC cache, or that is not the ARC way? thanks, Leal. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Enabling load balance with zfs
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Sergio Arroutbi [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
My point is that I want to use the same directory in the recorder program.
I get the streaming, and start writing the file in /mnt/streamingDirectory
So I would like to record in the same way, just configuring (via zfs if
possible), that one file should go to /dev/sda and the other file to the
/dev/sdb disk (I am using this in Linux via fuse).
This is interesting to me! What fuse file system allows you to spread a
single directory (file system) across two disks in a non-redundant manner
but not loose access to the file system if one of the disks fail?
My suggestion:
Create two ZFS pools, and mount them on different directories, for example
/mnt/storage_a
/mnt/storage_b
Then write a script which will do the following:
Start up periodically.
If new files exist in /mnt/streamingDirectory, copy them alternatingly (is
that a word) to /mnt/storage_a and /mnt/storage_b
Something like:
#!/bin/ksh
# use mkdir as a lock/test since the kernel will give us automatic
semaphore, thus we can have mutual-exclusion
mkdir /tmp/task_is_running || exit
# continue where we left off
NEXT_TARGET=$(cat -s /etc/last_target)
find /mnt/streamingDirectory -type f | while read FILENAME
do
[ $NEXT_TARGET = /mnt/storage_a/ ] NEXT_TARGET=/mnt/storage_b/ ||
NEXT_TARGET=/mnt/storage_a/
cp $FILENAME ${NEXT_TARGET}/ || exit 1
rm $FILENAME
done
echo $NEXT_TARGET /etc/last_target
# On exit without errors, remove the lock.
rmdir /tmp/task_is_running
Sorry I did not test this, it is off the cuff, typoes may exist. Or logic
errors. Also note the find ... | read will not port well to other shells.
_hartz
--
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke
My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Verify files' checksums
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Marcus Sundman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marcus Sundman wrote: How can I verify the checksums for a specific file? ZFS doesn't checksum files. AFAIK ZFS checksums all data, including the contents of files. So a file does not have a checksum to verify. I wrote checksums (plural) for a file (singular). AH - Then you DO mean the ZFS built-in data check-summing - my mistake. ZFS checksums allocations (blocks), not files. The checksum for each block is stored in the parent of that block. These are not shown to you but you can scrub the pool, which will see zfs run through all the allocations, checking whether the checksums are valid. This PDF document is quite old but explains it fairly well: http://www.google.co.za/url?sa=tsource=webct=rescd=1url=http%3A%2F%2Fru.sun.com%2Ftechdays%2Fpresents%2FSolaris%2Fhow_zfs_works.pdfei=f3EDSbnjB5iQQbG2wIICusg=AFQjCNG8qtO3bFgmD11izooR7SVbiSOI2Asig2=-EHfv5Puqz8dxkANISionQ What is not expressly stated in the block is that the ZFS allocation structure stores the posix layer and file data in the leaf nodes in the tree. Cheers, _hartz -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Verify files' checksums
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:00 AM, Marcus Sundman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can I verify the checksums for a specific file? I have a feeling you are not asking the question about ZFS hosted files specifically. If you downloaded a file, enter cksum filename To get the CRC Check-Sum For more types of checksum, you can use digest -a md5 filename digest -l will list types of checksum that the digest command knows about. Cheers, _hartz -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Verify files' checksums
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Johan Hartzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 4:00 AM, Marcus Sundman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can I verify the checksums for a specific file? I have a feeling you are not asking the question about ZFS hosted files specifically. If you downloaded a file, enter cksum filename To get the CRC Check-Sum For more types of checksum, you can use digest -a md5 filename digest -l will list types of checksum that the digest command knows about. Cheers, _hartz Oh, one other thing, To check the cheksums of files you've downloaded to a MS Windows system you need do download and install a checksum checking utility, try twocows.com _hartz -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool cross mount
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Laurent Burnotte [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: = is there in zfs an automatic mechanism during solaris 10 boot that prevent the import of pool B ( mounted /A/B ) before trying to import A pool or do we have to legacy mount and file /etc/vfstab This is fine if the pool from which /A is mounted is guaranteed to be present, online, and have /A mounted. Where /A is from the root pool, you should be safe most of the time. If not, set the canmount promptery of the Pool B /A/B dataset to noauto, otherwise it may bet mounted without /A being mounted, which depending on your situation can be a minor irritation or a serious problem. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot vs Linux fuse
Reboot to the grub menu Move to the failsafe kernel entry tap e to edit entry. go to the kernel entry and tap e again Append -kv to the end of the line Accept and tap b to boot the line. After some output you will be prompted to mount the root pool on /a - Enter y to accept. You will then get a shell prompt. Reboot and all should be fine. I actually need to ask a question: Did the person who imported the pool under Linux use the old (circa Feb 2008) zfs-fuse, or the new one (Sept 2008)? If the later, then it is possible that they also did a zpool upgrade and now your Solaris no longer understands the ZFS on-disk format. If this is the case, upgrade solaris (Boot from new media, go to the text-more installer, and select upgrade when prompted for the install type). This will update Solaris to understand the ZFS version. I think the older zfs-fuse used to support ZFS version 8 or 9, the new one supports version 12 or 13. On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Andrew Gallatin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a triple boot amd64 Linux/FreeBSD/OpenSolaris box used for Q/A. It is in a data center where I don't have easy physical access to the machine. It was working fine for months, now I see this at boot time on the serial console: SunOS Release 5.11 Version snv_86 64-bit Copyright 1983-2008 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. Use is subject to license terms. NOTICE: mount: not a UFS magic number (0x0) panic[cpu0]/thread=fbc245a0: cannot mount root path /ramdisk:a fbc446d0 genunix:rootconf+113 () fbc44720 genunix:vfs_mountroot+65 () fbc44750 genunix:main+d8 () fbc44760 unix:_locore_start+92 () I suspect the problem was caused when, under Linux, somebody foolishly exported then imported the Solaris rootfs using the Linux FUSE ZFS stuff so they could pull data off the Solaris side without a reboot. I guess that must have done something to the pool so that Solaris no longer likes it. The linux ZFS tools list the history of the zpool as: History for 'rpool': 2008-05-06.08:39:33 zpool create -f rpool_tmp c5t0d0s0 2008-05-06.08:39:33 zfs create rpool_tmp/ROOT 2008-05-06.08:39:33 zfs set compression=off rpool_tmp/ROOT 2008-05-06.08:39:35 zfs set mountpoint=/a/export rpool_tmp/export 2008-05-06.08:39:35 zfs set mountpoint=/a/export/home rpool_tmp/export/home 2008-05-06.08:51:28 zpool set bootfs=rpool_tmp/ROOT/opensolaris rpool_tmp 2008-05-06.08:51:29 zfs set mountpoint=/export/home rpool_tmp/export/home 2008-05-06.08:51:29 zfs set mountpoint=/export rpool_tmp/export 2008-05-06.08:51:31 zpool export -f rpool_tmp 2008-05-06.08:51:38 zpool import -f 2344082471458403555 rpool 2008-05-06.08:51:59 zpool set bootfs=rpool/ROOT/opensolaris rpool 2008-05-06.08:52:20 zfs snapshot -r [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-07.12:22:55 zpool import -ocachefile=/etc/zfs-cachefile -d /tmp/dev/ -f rpool 2008-09-07.12:26:00 zpool export rpool 2008-09-07.12:34:58 zpool import -d /tmp/dev rpool 2008-09-07.09:59:40 zpool import -f rpool 2008-09-07.17:20:56 zpool import -d /var/tmp/dev -f rpool 2008-09-07.17:21:43 zpool export rpool 2008-09-07.17:27:35 zpool import -d /var/tmp/dev/ rpool 2008-09-07.17:32:10 zpool export rpool 2008-09-07.17:32:23 zpool import -d /var/tmp/dev/ rpool 2008-09-07.17:32:40 zpool export rpool 2008-09-07.10:41:13 zpool import rpool 2008-09-07.11:42:09 zpool export rpool 2008-09-07.11:42:24 zpool import rpool 2008-09-07.11:45:26 zpool export rpool 2008-09-07.18:52:35 zpool import -d /var/tmp/dev rpool The entries from 2008-09-07 were operations using the linux tools, prior are from the Solaris installation. Is there any possible way to rescue the solaris installation remotely, using the linux install or via grub or kmdb from the serial console? How? Alternatively, would it be possible to rescue the installation by either moving the disk to an OpenSolaris machine (b95) and doing something (what?)? Or by booting via the Indiana installation CD (what?). Thanks, Drew -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke Afrikaanse Stap Website: http://www.bloukous.co.za My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ICQ = 193944626, YahooIM = johan_hartzenberg, GoogleTalk = [EMAIL PROTECTED], AIM = JohanHartzenberg ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs migration question
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Dave Bevans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I have a customer with the following question... She's trying to combine 2 ZFS 460gb disks into one 900gb ZFS disk. If this is possible how is this done? Is there any documentation on this that I can provide to them? There is no way to do this without a backup/restore. Backup one of the zpools. Destroy this zpool. Add the disk to the other (remaining) zpool. This will make it bigger automatically. Restore the data into your bigger pool. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] am I screwed?
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:25 PM, dick hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We have to dig deeper with kmdb. But before we do that, tell me please what is an easy way to transfer the messages from the failsafe login on the problematic machine to i.e. this S10u5 server. All former screen output had to be typed in by hand. I didn't know of another way. If you say no to mount the pool on /a, does it still hang? Just to ask the obvious question, did you try to press ENTER or anything else where it was hanging? What build are you booting into failsafe mode? Something older, or b99? Do you have a build-99 DVD to boot from, from which you can get a proper running system with networking, etc? -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Pros/Cons of multiple zpools?
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Joseph Mocker [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I add the second array to the pool, I could probably continue with the same number of columns in the raidz, but the size of the strips would increase. Would this effect performance somehow? I hate the word performance because it doesn't have a meaning. If you spread the load over more disks, IO will become less of a bottleneck, regardless of how you configure it. Whether this means anything at all depends on whether or not IO is currently your bottleneck or not. In addition, larger capacity disks store more bits per cylinder, thus more data pass the read/write head per revolution, thus the disks perform differently, regardless of other factors such as raid levels and stripe widths. Other factors include: Bus speed to the disks, type of work-load (small random reads, larges sequential writes, etc), whether you have enough free CPU and Memory to drive the disks to their full capacity, etc. Not knowing any of these things about your general storage data I would hazard to say it will perform better than it is currently performing, regardless of whether you add the new disks to the same or a new zpool, and if the existing pool, even if you use a different column size in the new vdev, it will still be true most likely. My suggestion: Add the disks in a way that makes sense to you holistically. Think about what you want to achieve - consider everything, like the required redundancy, performance, and required capacity. Go by your gut-feeling. Exception to the rule: If you have a serious performance problem and you know the system is currently disk (IO) bound. In this case, test it properly: Have base-line benchmarks and know what your testing objectives are before you start. Document your scenarios and run load tests on each scenario, monitoring all resources so you know which is the bottleneck in each case. For most people the correct answer is simply add the disks to the existing pool, using sensible raidz column sizes. If this breaks the rule of keep the raidz column sizes the same, then so be it. My understanding for the reason behind this rule has more to do with ensuring that you (and your boss/customers) understand the amount of protection your data has rather than with performance, but I may be wrong. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Pros/Cons of multiple zpools?
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Joseph Mocker [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I haven't seen this discussed before. Any pointers would be appreciated. I'm curious, if I have a set of disks in a system, is there any benefit or disadvantage to breaking the disks into multiple pools instead of a single pool? Does multiple pools cause any additional overhead for ZFS, for example? Can it cause cache contention/starvation issues? Hello Joseph. Firstly, a separate pool for the OS is recommended. The pool from which you boot must be either Mirrored or else a single disk. Booting from Stripes / RaidZ is not supported. Thus if you want to use a stripe or RaidZ you pretty much MUST have a dedicated pool for that. Secondly, if you use whole disks in your pools, it becomes possible to physically remove a pool (using zpool export), eg to move a pool to another system. Further, it is recommended to use the same level of redundancy in all vdev's. Eg all vdevs should be mirrored, or the same nr of columns in the stripe or raidz. This is not a restriction, just a strong recommendation. Never ever add multiple slices (partitions) from a single disk device to the same pool - this will cause performance to go down to a crawl! You can not (yet) break up a pool, though you can break off a mirror copy. And to stay in line with the above recommendations, you may want more than one pool. For best performance you should use whole-disks in pools, but sometimes for practical reasons you may want to spit a single disk up in slices and add those to separate pools. Hope that helps! _hartz -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke Afrikaanse Stap Website: http://www.bloukous.co.za My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Comments on green-bytes
Some people wrote: covered code. Since Sun owns that code they would need to rattle the cage. Sun? Anyone have any talks with these guys yet? Isn't CDDL file based so they could implement all the new functionality in Wouldn't it be great if programmers could just focus on writing code rather than having to worry about getting sued over whether someone else is able or not to make a derivative program from their code? -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs resilvering
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Richard Elling [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Mikael Kjerrman wrote: define a lot :-) We are doing about 7-8M per second which I don't think is a lot but perhaps it is enough to screw up the estimates? Anyhow the resilvering completed about 4386h earlier than expected so everything is ok now, but I still feel that the way it figures out the number is wrong. Yes, the algorithm is conservative and very often wrong until you get close to the end. In part this is because resilvering works in time order, not spatial distance. In ZFS, the oldest data is resilvered first. This is also why you will see a lot of thinking before you see a lot of I/O because ZFS is determining the order to resilver the data. Unfortunately, this makes time completion prediction somewhat difficult to get right. Hi Richard, Would it not make more sense then for the program to say something like No Estimate Yet during the early part of the process, at least? Cheers, _hartz ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [Fwd: Another ZFS question]
On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 1:30 PM, jonathan sai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would you mind helping me ask your tech guy whether there will be repercussions when I try to run this command in view of the situation below: # *zpool add -f zhome raidz c6t6006016056AC1A00C8FB7A6346F8DB11d0 c6t6006016056AC1A00D034FA5246F8DB11d0* It can be done. But with only two devices they should rather be mirrored than made into a raidz. Maybe wait for the scrub to continue and monitor the data errors before proceeding. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs resilvering
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note the progress so far 0.04%. In my experience the time estimate has no basis in reality until it's about 1% do or so. I think there is some bookkeeping or something ZFS does at the start of a scrub or resilver that throws off the time estimate for a while. Thats just my experience with it but it's been like that pretty consistently for me. Jonathan Stewart I agree here. I've watched iostat -xnc 5 while I start scrubbing a few times, and the first minute or so is spend doing very little IO. There after the transfers shoot up to near what I think is the maximum the drive can do an stays there until the scrub is completed. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Slow zpool import with b98
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Detlef [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With Nevada Build 98 I realize a slow zpool import of my pool which holds my user and archive data on my laptop. The first time it was realized during the boot if Solaris tells me to mount zfs filesystems (1/9) and then works for 1-2 minutes until it goes ahead. I hear the disk working but have no clue what happens here. So I checked to zpool export and import, and with this import it is also slow (takes around 90 seconds to import and with b97 it took 5 seconds). Has anyone an idea what the reason could be ? You don't by any chance have lots of USB flash storage devices or any blank media in the CD / DVD drive? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [install-discuss] Will OpenSolaris and Nevada co-exist in peace on the same root zpool
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:06 PM, James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Johan Hartzenberg writes: I am guessing the answer is YMMV depending on the differences in versions of, for example Firefox, Gnome, Thunderbird, etc, and based on how well these cope with settings that was changed by another potentially newer version of itself. The answers to your questions are basically all no. The new installer wants a primary partition or a whole disk. However, there are helpful blogs from folks who've made the transition. Poor Ed seems to have a broken 'shift' key, but he gives great details here: http://blogs.sun.com/edp/entry/moving_from_nevada_and_live Hi James. Thank you for the response. I am going to try it the other way around then - Install machine with OpenSolaris, then install NV into the pool as an alternate boot environment. I have a spare hard drive which I can use as a sandpit environment. Now I just need that other little thing called time to experiment. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke Afrikaanse Stap Website: http://www.bloukous.co.za My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ICQ = 193944626, YahooIM = johan_hartzenberg, GoogleTalk = [EMAIL PROTECTED], AIM = JohanHartzenberg ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] [install-discuss] Will OpenSolaris and Nevada co-exist in peace on the same root zpool
Well, I want to give OpenSolaris a try, but have not yet worked up the confidence to just try it. So a few questions: When I start the OpenSolaris installer, will it install into my existing root zpool? Which is called RPOOL. not rpool? Without destroying my existing Nevada installations? Or killing my existing Grub menu? And will it be intelligent about my existing Live Upgrade BEs? And other existing Shareable ZFS datasets (eg /export and /var/shared) Related to this: Can I have the same directory used for my home directory under both Nevada and OpenSolaris? I am guessing the answer is YMMV depending on the differences in versions of, for example Firefox, Gnome, Thunderbird, etc, and based on how well these cope with settings that was changed by another potentially newer version of itself. -- ZFS snapshots is your friend. ZFS = LiveUpgrade: A match made in heaven. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Availability: ZFS needs to handle disk removal / driver failure better
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Ian Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Miles Nordin writes: suggested that unlike the SVM feature it should be automatic, because by so being it becomes useful as an availability tool rather than just performance optimisation. So on a server with a read workload, how would you know if the remote volume was working? Even reads induced writes (last access time, if nothing else) My question: If a pool becomes non-redundant (eg due to a timeout, hotplug removal, bad data returned from device, or for whatever reason), do we want the affected pool/vdev/system to hang? Generally speaking I would say that this is what currently happens with other solutions. Conversely: Can the current situation be improved by allowing a device to be taken out of the pool for writes - eg be placed in read-only mode? I would assume it is possible to modify the CoW system / functions which allocates blocks for writes to ignore certain devices, at least temporarily. This would also lay a groundwork for allowing devices to be removed from a pool - eg: Step 1: Make the device read-only. Step 2: touch every allocated block on that device (causing it to be copied to some other disk), step 3: remove it from the pool for reads as well and finally remove it from the pool permanently. _hartz ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Moving a ZFS root to another target
You may also need to just boot to safe mode and manually import the root pool to mount on /a, then reboot as this updates the device path stored in the pool's on-disk meta-data. If you search for my posts you will find plenty discussions about my adventures with this. On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Stephen Hahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-08-16 00:38]: Hmm... Just tried the same thing on SXCE build 95 and it works fine. Strange. Anyone know what's up with OpenSolaris (the distro)? I'm using the ISO of OpenSolaris 208.11 snv_93 image-updated to build 95 if that makes a difference. I've not tried this on 2008.05 . For a while, the boot-archive on 2008.nn systems included a copy of zpool.cache. Recent versions do not make this mistake. Delete and regenerate your boot archive, and you should be able to make the transfer. See http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/2008-August/008341.html and following. - Stephen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/sch/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to zpool add a logical partition
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 9:18 PM, Yi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I see docs talking about how to add a fdisk partition (or primary partition) to a zfs pool. But I wonder if it's possible to add a logical partition, which is inside the extended partition, to a pool. I'm on an X86 system and these are in /dev/rdsk/: c4t0d0p[0-4] c4t0d0s[0-15] I don't know which represents which device. Thanks for any help! Solaris does not support Logical partitions in an extended partition. p0 is the whole disk p1 through p4 are the primary fdisk partitions s0 through s15 are the Slices in the Solaris partition There are no devices referring to the logical partitions. I have detailed the meaning of the Solaris disk device aliases in my blog. Cheers, _hartz -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke Afrikaanse Stap Website: http://www.bloukous.co.za My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] (no subject)
I believe it would be handy to be able to examine properties of a ZFS pool and all the data sets in it prior to importing the pool. In particular I would like to be able to do commands similar to zfs list and zfs get , for example to see where file systems will be mounted, whether they will be shared, eg whether new services will be started because I am importing a pool, etc. In addition I think a temporary import in read-only mode would be handy, possibly to facilitate the above. This temporary import should NOT update, for example, the last host to which the pool belonged. Any imput/suggestions before I open some RFEs? _Hartz -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke Afrikaanse Stap Website: http://www.bloukous.co.za My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Shared ZFS in Multi-boot?
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Bob Netherton [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 09:16 -0700, Daniel Templeton wrote: Is there a way that I can add the disk to a ZFS pool and have the ZFS pool accessible to all of the OS instances? I poked through the docs and searched around a bit, but I couldn't find anything on the topic. Yes. I do that all of the time. The trick here is to create the pool and filesystems with the oldest Solaris you will use. ZFS has very good backward compatibility but not the reverse. Here's a trick that will come in handy. Create quite a few empty ZFS filesystems in your oldest Solaris. In my case the pool is called throatwarbler and I have misc1 misc2 misc3 misc4 misc5 . What happens is that I will be running a newer Solaris and want a filesystem. Rather than reboot to the older Solaris, just rename misc[n] to the new name. Bob, is there any specific reason why you suggest the creation of a bunch of zfs datasets up front? I have found that once you have created the ZFS pool on the oldest Solaris, you should be able to create zfs datasets within it from any supported OS (including Linux with zfs-fuse) My experience with this: I had to create the zpool with zfs-fuse under Linux, and after that I was able to manipulate, import, and export the pool from on all releases. -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke Afrikaanse Stap Website: http://www.bloukous.co.za My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] [install-discuss] lucreate into New ZFS pool
Hello, Since I've got my disk partitioning sorted out now, I want to move my BE from the old disk to the new disk. I created a new zpool, named RPOOL for distinction with the existing rpool. I then did lucreate -p RPOOL -n new95 This completed without error, the log is at the bottom of this mail. I have not yet dared to run luactivate. I also have not yet dared set the ACTIVE flag on any partitions on the new disk (I had some interesting times with that previously). Before I complete these steps to set the active partition and run luactivate, I have a few questions: 1. I somehow doubt that the lucreate process installed a boot block on the new disk... How can I confirm this? Or is luactivate supposed to do this? 2. There are a number of open issues still with ZFS root. I saw some notes pertaining to leaving the first cylinder of the disk out from the root pool slice. What is that all about? 3. I have a remnant of the lucreate process in my mounts ... (which prevents, for example lumount and previously caused problems with luactivate) 4. I see the vdev for dump got created in the new pool, but not for swap? Is this to be expected? 5. There were notes about errors which were recorded in /tmp/lucopy.errors ... I've rebooted my machine since, so I can't review those any more I guess I need to run the lucreate again to see if it happens again and to be able to read those logs before they get lost again. 6. Since SHARED is an entirely independent pool, and since the purpose of this lucreate is to move root from one disk to another, I don't see why lucreate needed to make snapshots of the zone! 7. Despite the messages that the grub menu have been distributed and populated successfully, the new boot environment have not been added to the grub menu list. My experience though is that this happens during luactivate, so I'm not concerned about this just yet. Below is some bits showing the current status of the system: $ zfs list -r RPOOL NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT RPOOL 7.97G 24.0G 26.5K /RPOOL RPOOL/ROOT6.47G 24.0G18K /RPOOL/ROOT RPOOL/ROOT/new95 6.47G 24.0G 6.47G /.alt.new95 RPOOL/dump1.50G 25.5G16K - /RPOOL/boot/grub $ /RPOOL/boot/grub $ /RPOOL/boot/grub $ lustatus Boot Environment Is Active ActiveCanCopy Name Complete NowOn Reboot Delete Status -- -- - -- -- snv_94 yes no noyes- snv_95 yes yesyes no - new95 yes no noyes- /RPOOL/boot/grub $ luumount new95 ERROR: boot environment new95 is not mounted $ zfs list -r RPOOL NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT RPOOL 7.97G 24.0G 26.5K /RPOOL RPOOL/ROOT6.47G 24.0G18K /RPOOL/ROOT RPOOL/ROOT/new95 6.47G 24.0G 6.47G /.alt.new95 RPOOL/dump1.50G 25.5G16K - $ lustatus Boot Environment Is Active ActiveCanCopy Name Complete NowOn Reboot Delete Status -- -- - -- -- snv_94 yes no noyes- snv_95 yes yesyes no - new95 yes no noyes- Thank you, _Johan For what it is worth, below is the log of the lucreate session. /dev/dsk $ zpool create -f RPOOL c0d0s0 /dev/dsk $ timex lucreate -p RPOOL -n new95 Checking GRUB menu... System has findroot enabled GRUB Analyzing system configuration. Comparing source boot environment snv_95 file systems with the file system(s) you specified for the new boot environment. Determining which file systems should be in the new boot environment. Updating boot environment description database on all BEs. Updating system configuration files. Creating configuration for boot environment new95. Source boot environment is snv_95. Creating boot environment new95. Creating file systems on boot environment new95. Creating zfs file system for / in zone global on RPOOL/ROOT/new95. Populating file systems on boot environment new95. Checking selection integrity. Integrity check OK. Populating contents of mount point /. Copying. WARNING: The file /tmp/lucopy.errors.3488 contains a list of 2 potential problems (issues) that were encountered while populating boot environment new95. INFORMATION: You must review the issues listed in /tmp/lucopy.errors.3488 and determine if any must be resolved. In general, you can ignore warnings about files that were skipped because they did not exist or could not be opened. You cannot ignore errors such as directories or files that could not be created, or file systems running out of disk space. You must manually resolve any such problems before you activate boot environment new95. Creating shared file system mount points. Creating
[zfs-discuss] ZFS and disk partitioning
I am trying to upgrade my laptop hard drive, and want to use Live-upgrade. What I have done so far is: 1. Moved the old drive to an external enclosure 2. Made it bootable (At this point I had to overcome the first obstacle - due to ZFS storing the disk device path in the ZFS structure it refused to automatically mount the root file system. The work-around involved booting to safe mode and mounting the zfs file systems, then rebooting. Note previously I had to re-do this even when moving the disk from one USB port to another. The disk is now portable at least between USB ports, seemingly after zpool upgrade to v11) 3. Installed the new drive into the laptop. 4. Partitioned it using Solaris/fdisk. Oops. At this point I had to overcome the second obstacle - the system failed to find the root pool. The eventual solution (work arround) was to boot from a live CD and wipe the partition table from the internal disk. 5. Trying to create a partition table on the disk again resulted in format telling me the disk type is unknown. A partial work-arround was to temporarily put the whole disk under zfs control and then destroying the pool. This resulted in an EFI label being created on the disk. From here it was possible to delete the EFI partition and create new partitions, but Solaris does not properly recognize the primary partitions created. The desired outcome of the partitioning is: fdisk P1 = Solaris2 (oxbf) to be used as ZFS root fdisk P2 = (to be used as ZFS data pool) fdisk P3 = NTFS... Still debating whether I want to have a copy of Windows consuming disk space... I still have to finish Far Cry some time. fdisk P4 = Extended partition, will be sub-partitioned for Linux. The best I've been able to do so far is to use Linux to create P1 and P2 above with neither made active. If either is made active, I can no longer boot from the external disk (grub fails to find the root). But Linux did not properly create the partition table. AVAILABLE DISK SELECTIONS: 0. c0d0 WDC WD25- WD-WXE508NW759-0001-232.89GB /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/[EMAIL PROTECTED],2/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0) 1. c2t0d0 DEFAULT cyl 2688 alt 2 hd 255 sec 63 /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci1179,[EMAIL PROTECTED],7/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 Specify disk (enter its number)[0]: selecting c0d0 NO Alt slice No defect list found [disk formatted, no defect list found] Entering the FDISK menu, I see Total disk size is 30401 cylinders Cylinder size is 16065 (512 byte) blocks Cylinders Partition StatusType Start End Length% = == = === == === 1 Solaris2 0 42564257 14 2 EFI4256 2614021885 72 SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. Create a partition 2. Specify the active partition 3. Delete a partition 4. Change between Solaris and Solaris2 Partition IDs 5. Exit (update disk configuration and exit) 6. Cancel (exit without updating disk configuration) Enter Selection: Going to the partition menu, I try to create a Slice 0 of the entire disk: partition mod Select partitioning base: 0. Current partition table (original) 1. All Free Hog Choose base (enter number) [0]? 1 Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector 0 unassignedwm 0 0 0 1 unassignedwm 0 0 0 2 unassignedwm 0 0 0 3 unassignedwm 0 0 0 4 unassignedwm 0 0 0 5 unassignedwm 0 0 0 6 unassignedwm 0 0 0 8 reservedwm 0 0 0 Do you wish to continue creating a new partition table based on above table[yes]? 0 `0' is not expected. Do you wish to continue creating a new partition table based on above table[yes]? yes Free Hog partition[6]? 0 Enter size of partition 1 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Enter size of partition 2 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Enter size of partition 3 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Enter size of partition 4 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Enter size of partition 5 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Enter size of partition 6 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Enter size of partition 7 [0b, 33e, 0mb, 0gb, 0tb]: 0 Part TagFlag First Sector Size Last Sector 0usrwm34 232.88GB 488379741 1 unassignedwm 0 0 0 2 unassignedwm 0 0 0 3 unassignedwm 0 0 0 4 unassignedwm 0
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vs FAT
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Rahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can u site the differences b/w ZFS and FAT filesystems?? Assuming you are serious, the technical bits can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems But there is a bigger, fundamental difference between ZFS and all other file systems. Firstly, ZFS does away with traditional disk partitioning and space allocation principles. Many other volume managers claims to use storage pools in some form or another, but ZFS truly realizes this. To this effect, ZFS integrates volume management features to the POSIX layer. Basically, when a read from an application fails, the kernel is aware of the underlying bits which might save the day. In short, in stead of panic-ing because data is corrupted, it can possibly re-try the operation from a different disk, or even from a second copy on the same disk, etc. What is more, it will FIX the problem there and then, in the background. Example: Mirrored disks. One side of the mirror somehow fails the checksum on the data. ZFS reads from the other mirror, and returns good data to the application. But it goes further in that it fixes the bad data on the otehr mirror copy. Secondly, ZFS incorporates an amazing set of features: Online snapshots, encryption, reservations, quotas, compression, turning on and off these and several other features ONLINE. Third, ZFS administration is easy. No need to modify files to set mountpoins, share file systems, etc. The ZFS utilities will even turn on the required services for you when you share a file system via SMB or NFS. Lastly, ZFS's big claim to fame: Never get a corrupted file system. All operations are transactionally completed when they are comitted. This is done by means of three things: Copy-on-write for all changes, a tree-structure to the underlying data and meta-data and space allocation, and the ZIL - Eg the ZFS Intent Log. Going into these in depth are things you can read on in many posts on http://blogs.sun.com Hope this helps, _J ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] are these errors dangerous
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Matt Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Miles Nordin wrote: mh == Matt Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: mh I'm worried about is if the entire batch is failing slowly mh and will all die at the same time. Matt, can you please post the output from this command: iostat -E This will show counts of the types of errors for all disks since the last reboot. I am guessing sd0 is your CD / DVD drive. Thank you, _Johan -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke Afrikaanse Stap Website: http://www.bloukous.co.za My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Diagnosing problems after botched upgrade - grub busted
I tried to be clever and botched my upgrade. Now I don't get a grub menu, only an error like this: = Booting 'BE3 Solaris xVM' findroot (BE_BE3,1,a) Error 15: File not found Press any key to continue = I do not see a grub menu prior to this error, only the Stage1 Stage2 message which goes past very fast. Prior to this error I booted from a CD to single-user mode and ran installgrub stage1 stage2 /dev/rdsk/Xs0 I did this because at that point grub just gave me a grub prompt and I don't know grub well enough to boot from there. I rather suspect that if I manage to boot the system there will be a way to fix it permanently. But now rather let me give the sequence of events that led up to this in the order they happened. 1. I took the disk out of the laptop, and made it bootable in an external enclosure. This was a couple of days ago - I posted about the fun I had with that previously, but essentially booting to safemode and importing the rpool caused the on-disk device-path to be updated, making the disk once more bootable. 2. I partitioned the new disk, creating a solaris2 partition and on that a single hog-slice layout. s0 is the whole partition, minus slice 8 and 9. 3. I create a new future root pool, like this zpool create RPOOL -f c0d0s0 Note: -f required because s2 overlaps. 4. Ran lucreate, like this lucreate -p RPOOL -n BE4 This finished fine. I used upper-case RPOOL to distinguish it from the BE3 rpool. 5. mounted new Nevada build ISO on /mnt and ran upgraded the live-upgrade packages. 6. luupgrade -s /mnt -n BE4 7. lumount BE4 and peeked around in there a little. After this I rebooted, and got no grub menu, just a grub prompt. I then booted from the CD and ran installgrub. Not being able to get to man pages, I have tried it two times with different options, with reboots in between, like this: installgrub zfs_stage1_5 stage2 /dev/rds/s0 installgrub -m stage1 stage2 /dev/rdsk/xxs2 This at least got me the error above (Am I now worse off or better off than I were when I had the grub prmpt?). I then booted from the CD again and tried /boot/solaris/bin/update_grub as I found that in these forums, but it does not seem to have made any difference. I don't know if the command takes any options, I just ran it and it finished very quickly and without errors. Note: Due to past editing of the menu.lst file, the default item points to the BE3 xVM entry. I just tap the up-arrow and enter to load the non-xVM entry. Note: I never ran luactivate during the above procedure. Note: When booting to single-user shell from the install CD, it tells me that it finds both rpool (BE3) and RPOOL (BE4), allowing me to select one to mount on /a, however they do not mount, I get an error but I forgot to write that down. I get the same error for both. I could now just re-install and recover my data (I keep my data far away from OS disks/pools), or I can try to fix grub. I hope to learn from this process so my questions are: 1. What is up with grub here? I don't get a menu, but it does remember the old menu entry name for the default entry. This happens even when I try to boot without the External drive plugged in. 2. How can I edit the grub commands? What does Error 15: File not found mean? Is it looking for the grub menu? Or a program to boot? 3. Removing the internal disk from the machine may help... I am not sure to what extent grub uses the BIOS boot disk priority... Maybe that will get the external disk bootable again? 4. Should I try to get the grub menu back (from where I can try options to edit the boot entries), or should I try to get the grub prompt back? Or should I try to get one of the pools to import? Where do I go from here? Note: I have been careful not to touch or break anything on the external disk. However I never tried to reboot since partitioning the new disk with an ACTIVE partition, the way it is at present. I think this could also affect grub's perception of what disks are what. Thank you, _Johan ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 200805 Grub problems
Hello kugutsumen, Did you have any luck in resolving your problems? On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Kugutsumen [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I've just installed 2008.05 on a 500 gig disk... Install went fine... I attached an identically partitioned and labeled disk as soon as the rpool was created during the installation.: zpool attach rpool c5t0d0s0 c6t0d0s0 Resilver completed right away... and everything seemed to work fine. Boot on 1st disk and 2nd disk both worked fine... I created a zfs filesystem, enabled samba sharing which worked fine: pkg install SUNWsmbs pkg install SUNWsmbskr svcadm enable -r smb/server echo /etc/pam.conf other password required pam_smb_passwd.so.1 nowarn zfs create -o casesensitivity=mixed -o nbmand=on -o sharesmb=on rpool/p zfs set sharesmb=name=p rpool/p I copied a bunch of stuff to /rpool/p rebooted and problem started: Grub drops me to the command prompt without menu... Trying bootfs rpool/ROOT/opensolaris kernel$ /platform/i86pc/kernel/$ISADIR/unix -B $ZFS-BOOTFS failed with an inconsistent file system structure... Rebooted into install environment and did a 'zpool import -R /mnt -f rpool' ... rpool seems to be okay and rebooted. Grub drops me again to the command prompt without menu... Trying bootfs rpool/ROOT/opensolaris kernel$ /platform/i86pc/kernel/$ISADIR/unix -B $ZFS-BOOTFS fails with Error 17: Cannot mount selected partition Rebooted with the install CD in text mode... and tried zpool import -R /mnt -f rpool mkdir /mnt2 mount -F zfs rpool/ROOT/opensolaris /mnt2 bootadm update-archive -R /mnt2 zpool set bootfs=rpool/ROOT/opensolaris rpool installgrub /mnt/boot/grub/stage1 /mnt/boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c5t0d0s0 installgrub /mnt/boot/grub/stage1 /mnt/boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c6t0d0s0 What am I doing wrong? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke Afrikaanse Stap Website: http://www.bloukous.co.za My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ICQ = 193944626, YahooIM = johan_hartzenberg, GoogleTalk = [EMAIL PROTECTED], AIM = JohanHartzenberg ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Diagnosing problems after botched upgrade - grub busted
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Johan Hartzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: [snip] I could now just re-install and recover my data (I keep my data far away from OS disks/pools), or I can try to fix grub. I hope to learn from this process so my questions are: 1. What is up with grub here? I don't get a menu, but it does remember the old menu entry name for the default entry. This happens even when I try to boot without the External drive plugged in. 2. How can I edit the grub commands? What does Error 15: File not found mean? Is it looking for the grub menu? Or a program to boot? 3. Removing the internal disk from the machine may help... I am not sure to what extent grub uses the BIOS boot disk priority... Maybe that will get the external disk bootable again? 4. Should I try to get the grub menu back (from where I can try options to edit the boot entries), or should I try to get the grub prompt back? Or should I try to get one of the pools to import? Where do I go from here? Note: I have been careful not to touch or break anything on the external disk. However I never tried to reboot since partitioning the new disk with an ACTIVE partition, the way it is at present. I think this could also affect grub's perception of what disks are what. Thank you, _Johan I physically removed the internal disk. I am now able to boot again, at least temporarily. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] raid or mirror
Hi Dick You want Mirroring. A Sun system with mirrored disks can be configured to not go down due to one disk failing. For this to be valid, you need to also make sure that the device used for SWAP is mirrored - you won't believe how many times I've seen this mistake being made. To be even MORE safe, you want the two disks to be on separate controllers, so that you can survive a controller failure too. note: Technically, mirroring is RAID, to be specific, it is Raid level 1. _Johan On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:37 PM, dick hoogendijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm still confused. What is a -SAFE- way with two drives if you prepare for hardware faulure? That is: one drive fails and the system does not go down because the other drive takes over. Do I need raid or mirror? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D ++ http://nagual.nl/ + SunOS sxce snv91 ++ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke Afrikaanse Stap Website: http://www.bloukous.co.za My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ICQ = 193944626, YahooIM = johan_hartzenberg, GoogleTalk = [EMAIL PROTECTED], AIM = JohanHartzenberg ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Mirroring - Scenario
Sorry, but I'm stuck at 6540. There are so many options in how you would practically configure these that there is no way to give a sensible answer to your question. But the most basic questions are: Does the racks have power from separate PDUs? Are they in physically remote locations? Does your fabric switches have redundant power from separate PDUs? Do you want mirroring here purely for performance reasons? Because these systems have so much internal redundancy that I can not see why you would want to mirror across them. Striping would give you better performance. On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:01 PM, Robb Snavely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a scenario (tray failure) that I am trying to predict how zfs will behave and am looking for some input . Coming from the world of svm, ZFS is WAY different ;) If we have 2 racks, containing 4 trays each, 2 6540's that present 8D Raid5 luns to the OS/zfs and through zfs we setup a mirror config such that: I'm oversimplifying here but... Rack 1 - Tray 1 = lun 0Rack 2 - Tray 1 = lun 4 Rack 1 - Tray 2 = lun 1Rack 2 - Tray 2 = lun 5 Rack 1 - Tray 3 = lun 2Rack 2 - Tray 3 = lun 6 Rack 1 - Tray 4 = lun 3Rack 2 - Tray 4 = lun 7 so the zpool command would be: zpool create somepool mirror 0 4 mirror 1 5 mirror 2 6 mirror 3 7 ---(just for ease of explanation using the supposed lun numbers) so a status output would look similar to: somepool mirror 0 4 mirror 1 5 mirror 3 6 mirror 4 7 Now in the VERY unlikely event that we lost the first tray in each rack which contain 0 and 4 respectively... somepool mirror--- 0 | 4 | Bye Bye --- mirror 1 5 mirror 3 6 mirror 4 7 Would the entire somepool zpool die? Would it affect ALL users in this pool or a portion of the users? Is there a way in zfs to be able to tell what individual users are hosed (my group is a bunch of control freaks ;)? How would zfs react to something like this? Also any feedback on a better way to do this is more then welcome Please keep in mind I am a ZFS noob so detailed explanations would be awesome. Thanks in advance Robb ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke Afrikaanse Stap Website: http://www.bloukous.co.za My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ICQ = 193944626, YahooIM = johan_hartzenberg, GoogleTalk = [EMAIL PROTECTED], AIM = JohanHartzenberg ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] is it possible to add a mirror device later?
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Jeff Bonwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would just swap the physical locations of the drives, so that the second half of the mirror is in the right location to be bootable. ZFS won't mind -- it tracks the disks by content, not by pathname. Note that SATA is not hotplug-happy, so you're probably best off doing this while the box is powered off. Upon reboot, ZFS should figure out what happened, update the device paths, and... that's it. Wishlist item nr 1: Ability to setup raid 1+z Wishlist item nr 2: Remove disks from pools _J -- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke Afrikaanse Stap Website: http://www.bloukous.co.za My blog: http://initialprogramload.blogspot.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ? SX:CE snv_91 - ZFS - raid and mirror - drive sizes don't add correc
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Ross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For your second one I'm less sure what's going on: # zpool create temparray raidz c1t2d0 c1t4d0 raidz c1t3d0 c1t5d0 raidz c1t6d0 c1t8d0 This creates three two disk raid-z sets and stripes the data across them. The problem is that a two disk raid-z makes no sense. Traditionally this level of raid needs a minimum of three disks to work. I suspect ZFS may be interpreting raid-z as requiring one parity drive, in which case this will effectively mirror the drives, but without the read performance boost that mirroring would give you. The way zpool create works is that you can specify raid or mirror sets, but that if you list a bunch of these one after the other, it simply strips the data across them. I read somewhere, a long time ago when ZFS documentation were still mostly speculation, that raidz will use mirroring when the amount of data to be written is less than what justifies 2+parity. Eg in stead of 1+parity, you get mirrored data for small writes, and essentially raid-5 for big writes, with writes with intermediate sizes having raid 5 - like spread of blocks across disks but using fewer than the total nr of disks in the set. If that still holds true, then a raidz of 2 disks is probably just a mirror? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] bug id 6343667
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Robert Lawhead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: About a month ago (Jun 2008), I received information indicating that a putback fixing this problem was in the works and might appear as soon as b92. Apparently this estimate was overly optimistic; Does anyone know anything about progress on this issue or have a revised estimate for the putback? Thanks. This page: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6343667 Says the putback will be in SNV 94 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Some basic questions about getting the best performance for database usage
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Christiaan Willemsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is: how can we maximize IO by using the best possible combination of hardware and ZFS RAID? Here are some generic concepts that still hold true: More disks can handle more IOs. Larger disks can put more data on the outer edge, where performance is better. If you use disks much larger than your required data set, then the head seek movement will also be minimized (You can limit the seek more by forcing the file system to live in a small slice on the disk, the placement on the disk which you can control.) Don't put all your disks on a single controller. Just as more disks can handle more IOs at a time, so can more controllers issue more instructions at once. On the other hand giving each disk a dedicated controller is a waste because the controller will then be idle most of the time, waiting for the disk to return results. RAM, as mentioned before, is your friend. ZFS will use it liberally. You mentioned a 70 GB database, so: If you take say 10 x 146GB 15Krpm SAS disks, set those up in a 4-disk stripe and add a mirror to each disk, you'll get pretty decent performance. I read somewhere that ZFS automatically gives preferences to the outer cylinders of a disk when selecting free blocks, but you could also restrict the ZFS pool to using only the outer say 20 GB of each disk by creating slices and adding those to the pool. Note if you do use slices in stead of whole disks, you need to manually turn on disk write caching (format -e - SCSI cache options) If you don't care about tracking file access times, turn it off. (zfs set atime=off datapool) Have you decided on a server model yet? Storage subsystems? HBAs? The specifics in your configuration will undoubtedly get lots of responses from this list about how to tune each component! Everything from memory interleaving to spreading your HBAs across schizo chips. However much more important in your actual end result is your application and DB setup, config, and how it is developed. If the application developers or the DBAs get it wrong, the system will always be a dog. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenSolaris, ZFS and Hardware RAID, a recipe for success?
On Feb 10, 2008 9:06 AM, Jonathan Loran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Elling wrote: Nick wrote: Using the RAID cards capability for RAID6 sounds attractive? Assuming the card works well with Solaris, this sounds like a reasonable solution. Careful here. If your workload is unpredictable, RAID 6 (and RAID 5) for that matter will break down under highly randomized write loads. There's a lot of trickery done with hardware RAID cards that can do some read-ahead caching magic, improving the read-paritycalc-paritycalc-write cycle, but you can't beat out the laws of physics. If you do *know* you'll be streaming more than writing random small number of blocks, RAID 6 hardware can work. But with transaction like loads, performance will suck. Jon I would like to echo Jon's sentiments and add the following: If you are going to have a mix of workload types or if your IO pattern is unknown, then I would suggest that you configure the array as a JBOD and use raidz. Raid 5 or Raid 6 works best for predictable IOs with well controlled IO unit sizes. How you lay it out depends on whether you need (or want) hot spares. What are your objectives here? Maximum throughput, lowest latencies, maximum space, best redundancy, serviceability/portability, or ? Cheers, _J ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Performance Issue
On Feb 5, 2008 9:52 PM, William Fretts-Saxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This may not be a ZFS issue, so please bear with me! I have 4 internal drives that I have striped/mirrored with ZFS and have an application server which is reading/writing to hundreds of thousands of files on it, thousands of files @ a time. If 1 client uses the app server, the transaction (reading/writing to ~80 files) takes about 200 ms. If I have about 80 clients attempting it @ once, it can sometimes take a minute or more. I'm pretty sure its a file I/O bottleneck so I want to make sure ZFS is tuned properly for this kind of usage. The only thing I could think of, so far, is to turn off ZFS compression. Is there anything else I can do? Here is my zpool iostat output: Hi William To improve performance, consider turning off atime, assuming you don't need it... # zfs set atime=off POOL/filesystem _J ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
