On Sep 9, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 21:30 +, Will Murnane wrote:
Some hours later, here I am again:
scrub: scrub in progress for 18h24m, 100.00% done, 0h0m to go
Any suggestions?
Let it run for another day.
A pool on a build server I manage takes
On Aug 14, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Peter Schow wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 05:02:46PM -0600, Louis-Fr?d?ric Feuillette
wrote:
I saw this question on another mailing list, and I too would like to
know. And I have a couple questions of my own.
== Paraphrased from other list ==
Does anyone have
On Jul 4, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
This brings me to the absurd conclusion that the system must be
rebooted immediately prior to each use.
see Phil's later email .. an export/import of the pool or a remount of
the filesystem should clear the page cache - with mmap'd files
i've seen a problem where periodically a 'zfs mount -a' and sometimes
a 'zpool import pool' can create what appears to be a race condition
on nested mounts .. that is .. let's say that i have:
FS mountpoint
pool/export
pool/fs1
On Mar 6, 2009, at 8:58 AM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Jim Dunham wrote:
ZFS the filesystem is always on disk consistent, and ZFS does
maintain filesystem consistency through coordination between the
ZPL (ZFS POSIX Layer) and the ZIL (ZFS Intent Log). Unfortunately
for SNDR, ZFS caches a lot
not quite .. it's 16KB at the front and 8MB back of the disk (16384
sectors) for the Solaris EFI - so you need to zero out both of these
of course since these drives are 1TB you i find it's easier to format
to SMI (vtoc) .. with format -e (choose SMI, label, save, validate -
then choose
On Jul 11, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Has anyone tested a ZFS file system with at least 100 million +
files?
What were the performance characteristics?
I think that there are more issues with file fragmentation over a long
period of time than the sheer number of files.
On Apr 9, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Ross wrote:
Well the first problem is that USB cables are directional, and you
don't have the port you need on any standard motherboard. That
Thanks for that info. I did not know that.
Adding iSCSI support to ZFS is
On Mar 20, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Mario Goebbels wrote:
Similarly, read block size does not make a
significant difference to the sequential read speed.
Last time I did a simple bench using dd, supplying the record size as
blocksize to it instead of
On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
in that case .. try fixing the ARC size .. the dynamic resizing on
the ARC
can be less than optimal IMHO
Is a 16GB ARC size not considered to be enough? ;-)
I was only describing
On Mar 14, 2008, at 3:28 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
What's the best way to backup a zfs filesystem to tape, where the size
of the filesystem is larger than what can fit on a single tape?
ufsdump handles this quite nicely. Is there a similar backup program
for zfs? Or a general tape management
On Mar 1, 2008, at 3:41 AM, Bill Shannon wrote:
Running just plain iosnoop shows accesses to lots of files, but none
on my zfs disk. Using iosnoop -d c1t1d0 or iosnoop -m /export/
home/shannon
shows nothing at all. I tried /usr/demo/dtrace/iosnoop.d too, still
nothing.
hi Bill
this
On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Uwe Dippel wrote:
As much as ZFS is revolutionary, it is far away from being the
'ultimate file system', if it doesn't know how to handle event-
driven snapshots (I don't like the word), backups, versioning. As
long as a high-level system utility needs to be
On Dec 29, 2007, at 2:33 AM, Jonathan Loran wrote:
Hey, here's an idea: We snapshot the file as it exists at the time of
the mv in the old file system until all referring file handles are
closed, then destroy the single file snap. I know, not easy to
implement, but that is the correct
On Dec 5, 2007, at 17:50, can you guess? wrote:
my personal-professional data are important (this is
my valuation, and it's an assumption you can't
dispute).
Nor was I attempting to: I was trying to get you to evaluate ZFS's
incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if you
apologies in advance for prolonging this thread .. i had considered
taking this completely offline, but thought of a few people at least
who might find this discussion somewhat interesting .. at the least i
haven't seen any mention of Merkle trees yet as the nerd in me yearns
for
On Dec
On Dec 6, 2007, at 00:03, Anton B. Rang wrote:
what are you terming as ZFS' incremental risk reduction?
I'm not Bill, but I'll try to explain.
Compare a system using ZFS to one using another file system -- say,
UFS, XFS, or ext3.
Consider which situations may lead to data loss in each
On Nov 10, 2007, at 23:16, Carson Gaspar wrote:
Mattias Pantzare wrote:
As the fsid is created when the file system is created it will be the
same when you mount it on a different NFS server. Why change it?
Or are you trying to match two different file systems? Then you also
have to match
Hey Bill:
what's an object here? or do we have a mapping between objects and
block pointers?
for example a zdb -bb might show:
th37 # zdb -bb rz-7
Traversing all blocks to verify nothing leaked ...
No leaks (block sum matches space maps exactly)
bp count: 47
On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:57, Richard Elling wrote:
David Runyon wrote:
I was presenting to a customer at the EBC yesterday, and one of the
people at the meeting said using df in ZFS really drives him crazy
(no,
that's all the detail I have). Any ideas/suggestions?
Filter it. This is
On Oct 18, 2007, at 13:26, Richard Elling wrote:
Yes. It is true that ZFS redefines the meaning of available space.
But
most people like compression, snapshots, clones, and the pooling
concept.
It may just be that you want zfs list instead, df is old-school :-)
exactly - i'm not
SCSI based, but solid and cheap enclosures if you don't care about
support:
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?satitle=Sun+D1000
On Oct 1, 2007, at 12:15, Andy Lubel wrote:
I gave up.
The 6120 I just ended up not doing zfs. And for our 6130 since we
don't
have santricity or the
On Sep 25, 2007, at 19:57, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 04:47:48PM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
It seems like ZIL is a separate issue.
It is very much the issue: the seperate log device work was done
exactly
to make better use of this kind of non-volatile memory. To use
On Sep 26, 2007, at 14:10, Torrey McMahon wrote:
You probably don't have to create a LUN the size of the NVRAM
either. As
long as its dedicated to one LUN then it should be pretty quick. The
3510 cache, last I checked, doesn't do any per LUN segmentation or
sizing. Its a simple front end
On Sep 21, 2007, at 14:57, eric kustarz wrote:
Hi.
I gave a talk about ZFS during EuroBSDCon 2007, and because it won
the
the best talk award and some find it funny, here it is:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o3TGM0T1CvE
a bit better version is here:
On Sep 6, 2007, at 14:48, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Exactly the articles point -- rulings have consequences outside of
the
original case. The intent may have been to store logs for web server
access (logical and prudent request) but the ruling states that
RAM albeit
working memory is no
On Sep 4, 2007, at 12:09, MC wrote:
For everyone else:
http://blogs.sun.com/timthomas/entry/
samba_and_swat_in_solaris#comments
It looks like nevada 70b will be the next Solaris Express
Developer Edition (SXDE) which should also drop shortly and should
also have the ZFS ACL fix, but
On Jul 7, 2007, at 06:14, Orvar Korvar wrote:
When I copy that file from ZFS to /dev/null I get this output:
real0m0.025s
user0m0.002s
sys 0m0.007s
which can't be correct. Is it wrong of me to use time cp fil fil2
when measuring disk performance?
well you're reading and writing
On Jun 1, 2007, at 18:37, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
Can one use a spare SCSI or FC controller as if it were a target?
we'd need an FC or SCSI target mode driver in Solaris .. let's just
say we
used to have one, and leave it mysteriously there. smart idea though!
---
.je
On May 15, 2007, at 13:13, Jürgen Keil wrote:
Would you mind also doing:
ptime dd if=/dev/dsk/c2t1d0 of=/dev/null bs=128k count=1
to see the raw performance of underlying hardware.
This dd command is reading from the block device,
which might cache dataand probably splits requests
into
On May 5, 2007, at 09:34, Mario Goebbels wrote:
I spend yesterday all day evading my data of one of the Windows
disks, so that I can add it to the pool. Using mount-ntfs, it's a
pain due to its slowness. But once I finished, I thought Cool,
let's do it. So I added the disk using the zero
right on for optimizing throughput on solaris .. a couple of notes
though (also mentioned in the QFS manuals):
- on x86/x64 you're just going to have an sd.conf so just increase
the max_xfer_size for all with a line at the bottom like:
sd_max_xfer_size=0x80;
(note: if you look
Roch
what's the minimum allocation size for a file in zfs? I get 1024B by
my calculation (1 x 512B block allocation (minimum) + 1 x 512B inode/
znode allocation) since we never pack file data in the inode/znode.
Is this a problem? Only if you're trying to pack a lot files small
byte
On Feb 20, 2007, at 15:05, Krister Johansen wrote:
what's the minimum allocation size for a file in zfs? I get 1024B by
my calculation (1 x 512B block allocation (minimum) + 1 x 512B inode/
znode allocation) since we never pack file data in the inode/znode.
Is this a problem? Only if you're
On Feb 6, 2007, at 06:55, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello zfs-discuss,
It looks like when zfs issues write cache flush commands se3510
actually honors it. I do not have right now spare se3510 to be 100%
sure but comparing nfs/zfs server with se3510 to another nfs/ufs
server with se3510
On Feb 6, 2007, at 11:46, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Does anybody know how to tell se3510 not to honor write cache
flush
commands?
JE I don't think you can .. DKIOCFLUSHWRITECACHE *should* tell the
array
JE to flush the cache. Gauging from the amount of calls that zfs
makes to
JE
On Feb 3, 2007, at 02:31, dudekula mastan wrote:
After creating the ZFS file system on a VTOC labeled disk, I am
seeing the following warning messages.
Feb 3 07:47:00 scoobyb Corrupt label; wrong magic number
Feb 3 07:47:00 scoobyb scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: /
On Feb 2, 2007, at 15:35, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Unlike traditional journalling replication, a continuous ZFS send/recv
scheme could deal with resource constraints by taking a snapshot and
throttling replication until resources become available again.
Replication throttling would mean losing
On Jan 26, 2007, at 09:16, Jeffery Malloch wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am currently in the midst of setting up a completely new file
server using a pretty well loaded Sun T2000 (8x1GHz, 16GB RAM)
connected to an Engenio 6994 product (I work for LSI Logic so
Engenio is a no brainer). I have
On Jan 29, 2007, at 14:17, Jeffery Malloch wrote:
Hi Guys,
SO...
From what I can tell from this thread ZFS if VERY fussy about
managing writes,reads and failures. It wants to be bit perfect.
So if you use the hardware that comes with a given solution (in my
case an Engenio 6994) to
On Jan 25, 2007, at 10:16, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Albert Chin wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 10:19:29AM -0800, Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 24, 2007 10:04:04 AM -0800 Bryan Cantrill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:46:11AM -0800, Moazam Raja wrote:
Well, he did say
On Jan 25, 2007, at 14:34, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 10:16 -0500, Torrey McMahon wrote:
So there's no way to treat a 6140 as JBOD? If you wanted to use a
6140
with ZFS, and really wanted JBOD, your only choice would be a RAID 0
config on the 6140?
Why would you want to
On Jan 25, 2007, at 17:30, Albert Chin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 02:24:47PM -0600, Al Hopper wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 10:16 -0500, Torrey McMahon wrote:
So there's no way to treat a 6140 as JBOD? If you wanted to use
a 6140
with ZFS,
On Jan 24, 2007, at 09:25, Peter Eriksson wrote:
too much of our future roadmap, suffice it to say that one should
expect
much, much more from Sun in this vein: innovative software and
innovative
hardware working together to deliver world-beating systems with
undeniable
economics.
Yes
On Jan 24, 2007, at 06:54, Roch - PAE wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note also that for most applications, the size of their IO
operations
would often not match the current page size of the buffer, causing
additional performance and scalability issues.
Thanks for mentioning this, I
On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:41, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
well, Thumper is actually a reference to Bambi
You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, Bambi
was the
last thing on anyone's mind. I believe Fowler's intention was one
that
thumps (or, in the unique parlance of a
Roch
I've been chewing on this for a little while and had some thoughts
On Jan 15, 2007, at 12:02, Roch - PAE wrote:
Jonathan Edwards writes:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:10, Anton B. Rang wrote:
DIRECT IO is a set of performance optimisations to circumvent
shortcomings of a given filesystem
On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:10, Anton B. Rang wrote:
DIRECT IO is a set of performance optimisations to circumvent
shortcomings of a given filesystem.
Direct I/O as generally understood (i.e. not UFS-specific) is an
optimization which allows data to be transferred directly between
user data
On Dec 20, 2006, at 00:37, Anton B. Rang wrote:
INFORMATION: If a member of this striped zpool becomes
unavailable or
develops corruption, Solaris will kernel panic and reboot to
protect your data.
OK, I'm puzzled.
Am I the only one on this list who believes that a kernel panic,
On Dec 20, 2006, at 04:41, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
There also may be a reason to do this when confidentiality isn't
required: as a sparse provisioning hack..
If you were to build a zfs pool out of compressed zvols backed by
another pool, then it would be very convenient
On Dec 18, 2006, at 17:52, Richard Elling wrote:
In general, the closer to the user you can make policy decisions,
the better
decisions you can make. The fact that we've had 10 years of RAID
arrays
acting like dumb block devices doesn't mean that will continue for
the next
10 years :-)
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't directly involved in redundancy decisions?
---
On Dec 19, 2006, at 08:59, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Darren Reed wrote:
If/when ZFS supports this then it would be nice to also be able
to have Solaris bleach swap on ZFS when it shuts down or reboots.
Although it may be that this option needs to be put into how we
manage swap space and not
On Dec 18, 2006, at 11:54, Darren J Moffat wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather than bleaching which doesn't always remove all stains, why
can't
we use a word like erasing (which is hitherto unused for
filesystem use
in Solaris, AFAIK)
and this method doesn't remove all stains from
On Dec 19, 2006, at 10:15, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what
On Dec 18, 2006, at 16:13, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Al Hopper wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of the
On Dec 8, 2006, at 05:20, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
Hello ZFS Experts
I have two ZFS pools zpool1 and zpool2
I am trying to create bunch of zvols such that their paths are
similar except for consisent number scheme without reference to the
zpools that actually belong. (This will allow me
-optimal
performance might
be the result.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:24 PM
To: Jonathan Edwards
Cc: David Elefante; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Re
On Oct 25, 2006, at 15:38, Roger Ripley wrote:
IBM has contributed code for NFSv4 ACLs under AIX's JFS; hopefully
Sun will not tarry in following their lead for ZFS.
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-cvs/2006-September/070855.html
I thought this was still in draft:
On Oct 24, 2006, at 04:19, Roch wrote:
Michel Kintz writes:
Matthew Ahrens a écrit :
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Anthony Miller wrote:
Hi,
I've search the forums and not found any answer to the following.
I have 2 JBOD arrays each with 4 disks.
I want to create create a raidz on one
there's 2 approaches:
1) RAID 1+Z where you mirror the individual drives across trays and
then RAID-Z the whole thing
2) RAID Z+1 where you RAIDZ each tray and then mirror them
I would argue that you can lose the most drives in configuration 1
and stay alive:
With a simple mirrored
you don't really need to do the prtvtoc and fmthard with the old Sun
labels if you start at cylinder 0 since you're doing a bit - bit
copy with dd .. but, keep in mind:
- The Sun VTOC is the first 512B and s2 *typically* should start at
cylinder 0 (unless it's been redefined .. check!)
-
On Oct 8, 2006, at 23:54, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 11:16:21PM -0400, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Oct 8, 2006, at 22:46, Nicolas Williams wrote:
You're arguing for treating FV as extended/named attributes :)
kind of - but one of the problems with EAs is the increase
On Oct 8, 2006, at 21:40, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
On 10/7/06, Ben Gollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 6, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
What I'm saying is that I'd like to be able to keep multiple
versions of
my files without echo * or ls showing them to me by default.
Hmm, what
On Oct 6, 2006, at 23:42, Anton B. Rang wrote:I don't agree that version control systems solve the same problem as file versioning. I don't want to check *every change* that I make into version control -- it makes the history unwieldy. At the same time, if I make a change that turns out to work
On Sep 5, 2006, at 06:45, Robert Milkowski wrote:Hello Wee,Tuesday, September 5, 2006, 10:58:32 AM, you wrote:WYT On 9/5/06, Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is simply not true. ZFS would protect against the same type oferrors seen on an individual drive as it would on a pool made of
On Aug 1, 2006, at 22:23, Luke Lonergan wrote:
Torrey,
On 8/1/06 10:30 AM, Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.sun.com/storagetek/disk_systems/workgroup/3510/index.xml
Look at the specs page.
I did.
This is 8 trays, each with 14 disks and two active Fibre channel
On Aug 2, 2006, at 17:03, prasad wrote:
Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are any other hosts using the array? Do you plan on carving LUNs
out of
the RAID5 LD and assigning them to other hosts?
There are no other hosts using the array. We need all the available
space (2.45TB) on
On Aug 1, 2006, at 03:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x really
screwed up in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS
server that the clients (linux and IRIX) liked just fine.
Yes; the Linux NFS server and client work
On Aug 1, 2006, at 14:18, Torrey McMahon wrote:
(I hate when I hit the Send button when trying to change windows)
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:31:22PM -0400, Torrey McMahon wrote:
The correct comparison is done when all the factors are taken
into account. Making
On Jul 30, 2006, at 23:44, Malahat Qureshi wrote:
Is any one have a comparison between zfs vs. vxfs, I'm working on a
presentation for my management on this ---
That can be a tough question to answer depending on what you're
looking for .. you could take the feature comparison approach
On Jun 21, 2006, at 11:05, Anton B. Rang wrote:
My guess from reading between the lines of the Samsung/Microsoft
press release is that there is a mechanism for the operating system
to pin particular blocks into the cache (e.g. to speed boot) and
the rest of the cache is used for write
On Jun 28, 2006, at 12:32, Erik Trimble wrote:The main reason I don't see ZFS mirror / HW RAID5 as useful is this: ZFS mirror/ RAID5: capacity = (N / 2) -1 speed N / 2 -1 minimum # disks to lose before loss of data:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 06:23, Roch Bourbonnais - Performance Engineering
wrote:
Naively I'd think a write_cache should not help throughput
test since the cache should fill up after which you should still be
throttled by the physical drain rate. You clearly show that
it helps; Anyone knows
74 matches
Mail list logo
