On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:06 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
I will only say, that regardless of whether or not that is or ever was true,
I believe it's entirely irrelevant. Because your system performs read and
write caching and buffering in ram,
On Jun 16, 2011, at 7:23 PM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 6/16/2011 1:32 PM, Paul Kraus wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
You can run OpenVMS :-)
Since *you* brought it up (I was not going to :-), how does VMS'
On Mar 16, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Paul Kraus p...@kraus-haus.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
BTW, what is the advantage of the kernel cifs server as opposed to samba?
It seems, years ago, somebody must have
On Dec 24, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
Latency is what matters most. While there is a loose relationship between
IOPS
and latency, you really want low latency. For 15krpm drives, the average
latency
is 2ms for zero seeks. A decent SSD will beat that
On Dec 15, 2010, at 6:48 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Linder, Doug wrote:
But it sure would be nice if they spared everyone a lot of effort and
annoyance and just GPL'd ZFS. I think the goodwill generated
Why do you want them to GPL ZFS?
On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: Ross Walker [mailto:rswwal...@gmail.com]
Well besides databases there are VM datastores, busy email servers, busy
ldap servers, busy web servers, and I'm sure the list goes
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:41 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
For anyone who cares:
I created an ESXi machine. Installed two guest (centos) machines and
vmware-tools. Connected them to each other via only a virtual switch. Used
rsh to transfer
On Dec 7, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk r...@karlsbakk.net wrote:
Bear a few things in mind:
iops is not iops.
snip/
I am totally aware of these differences, but it seems some people think RAIDz
is nonsense unless you don't need speed at all. My testing shows (so far)
that
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen pa...@iki.fi wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:14:10AM +, Bruno Sousa wrote:
Hi all,
Let me tell you all that the MC/S *does* make a difference...I had a
windows fileserver using an ISCSI connection to a host running snv_134
On Nov 16, 2010, at 4:04 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net wrote:
tc == Tim Cook t...@cook.ms writes:
tc Channeling Ethernet will not make it any faster. Each
tc individual connection will be limited to 1gbit. iSCSI
On Nov 16, 2010, at 7:49 PM, Jim Dunham james.dun...@oracle.com wrote:
On Nov 16, 2010, at 6:37 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
On Nov 16, 2010, at 4:04 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
AFAIK, esx/i doesn't support L4 hash, so that's a non-starter.
For iSCSI one just needs to have a second (third
On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Ian D rewar...@hotmail.com wrote:
Maybe you are experiencing this:
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=11942
It does look like this... Is this really the expected behaviour? That's just
unacceptable. It is so bad it sometimes drop connection and
On Nov 1, 2010, at 3:33 PM, Mark Sandrock mark.sandr...@oracle.com wrote:
Hello,
I'm working with someone who replaced a failed 1TB drive (50% utilized),
on an X4540 running OS build 134, and I think something must be wrong.
Last Tuesday afternoon, zpool status reported:
scrub:
On Oct 19, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Tuomas Leikola tuomas.leik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Simon Breden sbre...@gmail.com wrote:
So are we all agreed then, that a vdev failure will cause pool loss ?
--
unless you use copies=2 or 3, in which case your data is still safe
On Oct 15, 2010, at 9:18 AM, Stephan Budach stephan.bud...@jvm.de wrote:
Am 14.10.10 17:48, schrieb Edward Ned Harvey:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Toby Thain
I don't want to heat up the discussion about ZFS managed
On Oct 15, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Ian D rewar...@hotmail.com wrote:
Has anyone suggested either removing L2ARC/SLOG
entirely or relocating them so that all devices are
coming off the same controller? You've swapped the
external controller but the H700 with the internal
drives could be the real
On Oct 12, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Stephan Budach
c3t211378AC0253d0 ONLINE 0 0 0
How many disks are there inside of
On Sep 9, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Fei Xu twinse...@hotmail.com wrote:
Service times here are crap. Disks are malfunctioning
in some way. If
your source disks can take seconds (or 10+ seconds)
to reply, then of
course your copy will be slow. Disk is probably
having a hard time
reading the data
On Aug 27, 2010, at 1:04 AM, Mark markwo...@yahoo.com wrote:
We are using a 7210, 44 disks I believe, 11 stripes of RAIDz sets. When I
installed I selected the best bang for the buck on the speed vs capacity
chart.
We run about 30 VM's on it, across 3 ESX 4 servers. Right now, its all
I'm planning on setting up an NFS server for our ESXi hosts and plan on using a
virtualized Solaris or Nexenta host to serve ZFS over NFS.
The storage I have available is provided by Equallogic boxes over 10Gbe iSCSI.
I am trying to figure out the best way to provide both performance and
On Aug 21, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Bill Sommerfeld bill.sommerf...@oracle.com wrote:
On 08/21/10 10:14, Ross Walker wrote:
I am trying to figure out the best way to provide both performance and
resiliency given the Equallogic provides the redundancy.
(I have no specific experience
On Aug 21, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Richard Elling rich...@nexenta.com wrote:
On Aug 21, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Ross Walker wrote:
I'm planning on setting up an NFS server for our ESXi hosts and plan on
using a virtualized Solaris or Nexenta host to serve ZFS over NFS.
Please follow the joint EMC
On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Linus is right with his primary decision, but this also applies for static
linking. See Lawrence Rosen for more information, the GPL does not distinct
between
On Aug 16, 2010, at 11:17 PM, Frank Cusack frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage.
You're saying Oracle wants to keep
On Aug 16, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
ZFS does raid, and mirroring, and resilvering, and partitioning, and NFS, and
CIFS, and iSCSI, and device management via vdev's, and so on. So ZFS steps
on a lot of linux peoples' toes. They already have code to do
On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Peter Jeremy peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com
wrote:
Given that both provide similar features, it's difficult to see why
Oracle would continue to invest in both. Given that ZFS is the more
mature product, it would seem more logical to transfer all the effort
to
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:26 AM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
#3 I previously believed that vmfs3 was able to handle sparse files
amazingly well, like, when
On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Roch roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
Ross Walker writes:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Roch roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
Ross Walker writes:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Roch roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
Ross Asks:
So on that note, ZFS should
On Aug 5, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Roch Bourbonnais roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
Le 5 août 2010 à 19:49, Ross Walker a écrit :
On Aug 5, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Roch roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
Ross Walker writes:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Roch roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
Ross
On Aug 4, 2010, at 3:52 AM, Roch roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
Ross Walker writes:
On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Roch Bourbonnais roch.bourbonn...@sun.com
wrote:
Le 27 mai 2010 à 07:03, Brent Jones a écrit :
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Matt Connolly
matt.connolly
On Aug 4, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Roch roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
Ross Asks:
So on that note, ZFS should disable the disks' write cache,
not enable them despite ZFS's COW properties because it
should be resilient.
No, because ZFS builds resiliency on top of unreliable parts. it's
On Aug 4, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Roch roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
Ross Walker writes:
On Aug 4, 2010, at 9:20 AM, Roch roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
Ross Asks:
So on that note, ZFS should disable the disks' write cache,
not enable them despite ZFS's COW properties because
On Aug 3, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
On 03/08/2010 22:49, Ross Walker wrote:
On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Roch Bourbonnaisroch.bourbonn...@sun.com
wrote:
Le 27 mai 2010 à 07:03, Brent Jones a écrit :
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Matt
On Aug 3, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
On 03/08/2010 22:49, Ross Walker wrote:
On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Roch Bourbonnaisroch.bourbonn...@sun.com
wrote:
Le 27 mai 2010 à 07:03, Brent Jones a écrit :
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Matt
On Jul 26, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Dav Banks davba...@virginia.edu wrote:
I wanted to test it as a backup solution. Maybe that's crazy in itself but I
want to try it.
Basically, once a week detach the 'backup' pool from the mirror, replace the
drives, add the new raidz to the mirror and let it
On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:14 PM, Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
From: Arne Jansen [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
Can anyone else confirm or deny the correctness of this statement?
As I understand it that's the whole point of raidz. Each block is its
own
stripe.
Nope, that
On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net wrote:
sw == Saxon, Will will.sa...@sage.com writes:
sw 'clone' vs. a 'copy' would be very easy since we have
sw deduplication now
dedup doesn't replace the snapshot/clone feature for the
NFS-share-full-of-vmdk use case
On Jul 20, 2010, at 6:12 AM, v victor_zh...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi,
for zfs raidz1, I know for random io, iops of a raidz1 vdev eqaul to one
physical disk iops, since raidz1 is like raid5 , so is raid5 has same
performance like raidz1? ie. random iops equal to one physical disk's ipos.
On
The whole disk layout should be copied from disk 1 to 2, then the slice on disk
2 that corresponds to the slice on disk 1 should be attached to the rpool which
forms an rpool mirror (attached not added).
Then you need to add the grub bootloader to disk 2.
When it finishes resilvering then you
On Jul 11, 2010, at 5:11 PM, Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com wrote:
ZFS-FUSE is horribly unstable, although that's more an indication of
the stability of the storage stack on Linux.
Not really, more an indication of the pseudo-VFS layer implemented in fuse.
Remember fuse provides it's own VFS
On Jul 10, 2010, at 5:46 AM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 7/10/2010 1:14 AM, Graham McArdle wrote:
Instead, create Single Disk arrays for each disk.
I have a question related to this but with a different controller: If I'm
using a RAID controller to provide non-RAID
On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
On 23/06/2010 18:50, Adam Leventhal wrote:
Does it mean that for dataset used for databases and similar environments
where basically all blocks have fixed size and there is no other data all
parity information will
On Jun 24, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
On 24/06/2010 14:32, Ross Walker wrote:
On Jun 24, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Robert Milkowskimi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
On 23/06/2010 18:50, Adam Leventhal wrote:
Does it mean that for dataset used for databases
On Jun 23, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
128GB.
Does it mean that for dataset used for databases and similar environments
where basically all blocks have fixed size and there is no other data all
parity information will end-up on one (z1) or two (z2)
On Jun 22, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Jeff Bacon ba...@walleyesoftware.com wrote:
The term 'stripe' has been so outrageously severely abused in this
forum that it is impossible to know what someone is talking about when
they use the term. Seemingly intelligent people continue to use wrong
terminology
On Jun 16, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Carlos Varela carlos.var...@cibc.ca
wrote:
Does the machine respond to ping?
Yes
If there is a gui does the mouse pointer move?
There is no GUI (nexentastor)
Does the keyboard numlock key respond at all ?
Yes
I just find it very hard to believe
On Jun 13, 2010, at 2:14 PM, Jan Hellevik
opensola...@janhellevik.com wrote:
Well, for me it was a cure. Nothing else I tried got the pool back.
As far as I can tell, the way to get it back should be to use
symlinks to the fdisk partitions on my SSD, but that did not work
for me. Using
On Jun 11, 2010, at 2:07 AM, Dave Koelmeyer davekoelme...@me.com
wrote:
I trimmed, and then got complained at by a mailing list user that
the context of what I was replying to was missing. Can't win :P
If at a minimum one trims the disclaimers, footers and signatures,
that's better then
On Jun 10, 2010, at 5:54 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jun 10, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Arne Jansen wrote:
Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
Well, I'm more accustomed to sequential vs. random, but YMMW.
As to 67000 512 byte writes (this sounds suspiciously close to
32Mb fitting into
On Jun 8, 2010, at 1:33 PM, besson3c j...@netmusician.org wrote:
Sure! The pool consists of 6 SATA drives configured as RAID-Z. There
are no special read or write cache drives. This pool is shared to
several VMs via NFS, these VMs manage email, web, and a Quickbooks
server running on
On Jun 7, 2010, at 2:10 AM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com
wrote:
Comments in-line.
On 6/6/2010 9:16 PM, Ken wrote:
I'm looking at VMWare, ESXi 4, but I'll take any advice offered.
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 19:40, Erik Trimble
erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
On 6/6/2010 6:22 PM, Ken
On Jun 2, 2010, at 12:03 PM, zfsnoob4 zfsnoob...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Wow thank you very much for the clear instructions.
And Yes, I have another 120GB drive for the OS, separate from A, B
and C. I will repartition the drive and install Solaris. Then maybe
at some point I'll delete the
On May 20, 2010, at 7:17 PM, Ragnar Sundblad ra...@csc.kth.se wrote:
On 21 maj 2010, at 00.53, Ross Walker wrote:
On May 20, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Travis Tabbal tra...@tabbal.net wrote:
use a slog at all if it's not durable? You should
disable the ZIL
instead.
This is basically where I
On May 20, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Travis Tabbal tra...@tabbal.net wrote:
use a slog at all if it's not durable? You should
disable the ZIL
instead.
This is basically where I was going. There only seems to be one SSD
that is considered working, the Zeus IOPS. Even if I had the
money, I can't
On May 12, 2010, at 7:12 PM, Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com
wrote:
On May 11, 2010, at 10:17 PM, schickb wrote:
I'm looking for input on building an HA configuration for ZFS. I've
read the FAQ and understand that the standard approach is to have a
standby system with access to a
On May 12, 2010, at 1:17 AM, schickb schi...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm looking for input on building an HA configuration for ZFS. I've
read the FAQ and understand that the standard approach is to have a
standby system with access to a shared pool that is imported during
a failover.
The
On May 12, 2010, at 3:06 PM, Manoj Joseph manoj.p.jos...@oracle.com
wrote:
Ross Walker wrote:
On May 12, 2010, at 1:17 AM, schickb schi...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm looking for input on building an HA configuration for ZFS. I've
read the FAQ and understand that the standard approach is to have
On May 6, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Edward Ned Harvey solar...@nedharvey.com
wrote:
From: Pasi Kärkkäinen [mailto:pa...@iki.fi]
In neither case do you have data or filesystem corruption.
ZFS probably is still OK, since it's designed to handle this (?),
but the data can't be OK if you lose 30
On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Geoff Nordli geo...@grokworx.com wrote:
From: Ross Walker [mailto:rswwal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 6:34 AM
On Apr 20, 2010, at 4:44 PM, Geoff Nordli geo...@grokworx.com
wrote:
If you combine the hypervisor and storage server and have
On Apr 20, 2010, at 4:44 PM, Geoff Nordli geo...@grokworx.com wrote:
From: matthew patton [mailto:patto...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 12:54 PM
Geoff Nordli geo...@grokworx.com wrote:
With our particular use case we are going to do a save
state on their
virtual machines, which
On Apr 20, 2010, at 12:13 AM, Sunil funt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
I have a strange requirement. My pool consists of 2 500GB disks in
stripe which I am trying to convert into a RAIDZ setup without data
loss but I have only two additional disks: 750GB and 1TB. So, here
is what I thought:
On Apr 19, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Don d...@blacksun.org wrote:
Now I'm simply confused.
Do you mean one cachefile shared between the two nodes for this
zpool? How, may I ask, would this work?
The rpool should be in /etc/zfs/zpool.cache.
The shared pool should be in /etc/cluster/zpool.cache
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
solar...@nedharvey.com wrote:
Seriously, all disks configured WriteThrough (spindle and SSD disks
alike)
using the dedicated ZIL SSD device, very noticeably faster than
enabling the
WriteBack.
What do you get with both SSD ZIL and
On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:51 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
solar...@nedharvey.com wrote:
A MegaRAID card with write-back cache? It should also be cheaper than
the F20.
I haven't posted results yet, but I just finished a few weeks of
extensive
benchmarking various configurations. I can say this:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 11:58 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
solar...@nedharvey.com wrote:
We ran into something similar with these drives in an X4170 that
turned
out to
be an issue of the preconfigured logical volumes on the drives. Once
we made
sure all of our Sun PCI HBAs where running the exact
On Apr 1, 2010, at 8:42 AM, casper@sun.com wrote:
Is that what sync means in Linux?
A sync write is one in which the application blocks until the OS
acks that
the write has been committed to disk. An async write is given to
the OS,
and the OS is permitted to buffer the write to
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Darren J Moffat
darr...@opensolaris.org wrote:
On 01/04/2010 14:49, Ross Walker wrote:
We're talking about the sync for NFS exports in Linux; what do they
mean
with sync NFS exports?
See section A1 in the FAQ:
http://nfs.sourceforge.net/
I think B4
On Mar 31, 2010, at 5:39 AM, Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Karsten Weiss
Use something other than Open/Solaris with ZFS as an NFS
server? :)
I don't think you'll find the performance you paid for with ZFS and
Solaris at this time. I've been
On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:25 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 5:39 AM, Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Karsten Weiss
Use something other than Open/Solaris
On Mar 20, 2010, at 10:18 AM, vikkr psi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi sorry for bad eng and picture :).
Can such a decision?
3 servers openfiler give their drives 2 - 1 tb ISCSI server to
OpenSolaris
On OpenSolaris assembled a RAID-Z with double parity.
Server OpenSolaris provides NFS access to
On Mar 20, 2010, at 11:48 AM, vikkr psi...@gmail.com wrote:
THX Ross, i plan exporting each drive individually over iSCSI.
I this case, the write, as well as reading, will go to all 6 discs
at once, right?
The only question - how to calculate fault tolerance of such a
system if the discs
On Mar 17, 2010, at 2:30 AM, Erik Ableson eable...@mac.com wrote:
On 17 mars 2010, at 00:25, Svein Skogen sv...@stillbilde.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16.03.2010 22:31, erik.ableson wrote:
On 16 mars 2010, at 21:00, Marc Nicholas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 16,
On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Gabriele Bulfon gbul...@sonicle.com
wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to check for any guidance about using zfs on iscsi storage
appliances.
Recently I had an unlucky situation with an unlucky storage machine
freezing.
Once the storage was up again (rebooted) all other
On Mar 15, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Ware Adams rwali...@washdcmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 15, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
Well, I actually don't know what implementation is inside this
legacy machine.
This machine is an AMI StoreTrends ITX, but maybe it has been built
around IET,
On Mar 15, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Tonmaus sequoiamo...@gmx.net wrote:
Being an iscsi
target, this volume was mounted as a single iscsi
disk from the solaris host, and prepared as a zfs
pool consisting of this single iscsi target. ZFS best
practices, tell me that to be safe in case of
corruption,
On Mar 15, 2010, at 11:10 PM, Tim Cook t...@cook.ms wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 15, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Tonmaus sequoiamo...@gmx.net wrote:
Being an iscsi
target, this volume was mounted as a single iscsi
disk from the solaris host
On Mar 11, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Andrew acmcomput...@hotmail.com wrote:
Ok,
The fault appears to have occurred regardless of the attempts to
move to vSphere as we've now moved the host back to ESX 3.5 from
whence it came and the problem still exists.
Looks to me like the fault occurred as a
On Mar 11, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Andrew acmcomput...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Ross,
Ok - as a Solaris newbie.. i'm going to need your help.
Format produces the following:-
c8t4d0 (VMware-Virtualdisk-1.0 cyl 65268 alt 2 hd 255 sec 126) /
p...@0,0/pci15ad,1...@10/s...@4,0
what dd command do I
On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:46 PM, ольга крыжановская olga.kryzh
anov...@gmail.com wrote:
tmpfs lacks features like quota and NFSv4 ACL support. May not be the
best choice if such features are required.
True, but if the OP is looking for those features they are more then
unlikely looking for an
On Mar 9, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Roch Bourbonnais
roch.bourbonn...@sun.com wrote:
I think This is highlighting that there is extra CPU requirement to
manage small blocks in ZFS.
The table would probably turn over if you go to 16K zfs records and
16K reads/writes form the application.
Next
On Feb 25, 2010, at 9:11 AM, Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Jacob Ritorto jacob.rito...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's a kind gesture to say it'll continue to exist and all, but
without commercial support from the manufacturer, it's relegated to
On Feb 19, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Ragnar Sundblad ra...@csc.kth.se wrote:
On 18 feb 2010, at 13.55, Phil Harman wrote:
...
Whilst the latest bug fixes put the world to rights again with
respect to correctness, it may be that some of our performance
workaround are still unsafe (i.e. if my iSCSI
On Feb 9, 2010, at 1:55 PM, matthew patton patto...@yahoo.com wrote:
The cheapest solution out there that isn't a Supermicro-like server
chassis, is DAS in the form of HP or Dell MD-series which top out at
15 or 16 3 drives. I can only chain 3 units per SAS port off a HBA
in either case.
On Feb 8, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Edward Ned Harvey macenterpr...@nedharvey.com
wrote:
How are you managing UID's on the NFS server? If user eharvey
connects to
server from client Mac A, or Mac B, or Windows 1, or Windows 2, or
any of
the linux machines ... the server has to know it's eharvey,
On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:49 AM, Robert Milkowski mi...@task.gda.pl wrote:
Actually, there is.
One difference is that when writing to a raid-z{1|2} pool compared
to raid-10 pool you should get better throughput if at least 4
drives are used. Basically it is due to the fact that in RAID-10 the
this manually, using basic file system
functions offered by OS. I scan every byte in every file manually
and it
^^^
On February 3, 2010 10:11:01 AM -0500 Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Not a ZFS method, but you could use rsync
On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:53 AM, Henu henrik.he...@tut.fi wrote:
Okay, so first of all, it's true that send is always fast and 100%
reliable because it uses blocks to see differences. Good, and thanks
for this information. If everything else fails, I can parse the
information I want from send
On Feb 3, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Frank Cusack frank+lists/
z...@linetwo.net wrote:
On February 3, 2010 12:19:50 PM -0500 Frank Cusack frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net
wrote:
If you do need to know about deleted files, the find method still may
be faster depending on how ddiff determines whether or
On Feb 3, 2010, at 8:59 PM, Frank Cusack frank+lists/z...@linetwo.net
wrote:
On February 3, 2010 6:46:57 PM -0500 Ross Walker
rswwal...@gmail.com wrote:
So was there a final consensus on the best way to find the difference
between two snapshots (files/directories added, files/directories
On Jan 30, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Mark white...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a 1U server that supports 2 SATA drives in the chassis. I
have 2 750 GB SATA drives. When I install opensolaris, I assume it
will want to use all or part of one of those drives for the install.
That leaves me with the
On Jan 21, 2010, at 6:47 PM, Daniel Carosone d...@geek.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:54:21PM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
+ support file systems larger then 2GiB include 32-bit UIDs a GIDs
file systems, but what about individual files within?
I think the original author meant
On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Mr. T Doodle tpsdoo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
I have played with ZFS but not deployed any production systems using
ZFS and would like some opinions
I have a T-series box with 4 internal drives and would like to
deploy ZFS with availability and
On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010, bank kus wrote:
Are we still trying to solve the starvation problem?
I would argue the disk I/O model is fundamentally broken on Solaris
if there is no fair I/O scheduling between
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net wrote:
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Ross Walker rswwal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:55 PM, Steffen Plotner swplot...@amherst.edu
wrote:
Hello,
I was doing performance testing, validating zvol performance
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
Some important points to consider are that every write to a raidz vdev
must be synchronous. In other words, the write needs to complete on all the
drives
On Dec 30, 2009, at 11:55 PM, Steffen Plotner
swplot...@amherst.edu wrote:
Hello,
I was doing performance testing, validating zvol performance in
particularly, and found that zvol write performance to be slow
~35-44MB/s at 1MB blocksize writes. I then tested the underlying zfs
file
On Dec 29, 2009, at 7:55 AM, Brad bene...@yahoo.com wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion!
I have heard mirrored vdevs configuration are preferred for Oracle
but whats the difference between a raidz mirrored vdev vs a raid10
setup?
A mirrored raidz provides redundancy at a steep cost to
On Dec 29, 2009, at 12:36 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
A mirrored raidz provides redundancy at a steep cost to performance
and might I add a high monetary cost.
I am not sure what a mirrored raidz is. I have never heard
On Dec 25, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Jeroen Roodhart j.r.roodh...@uva.nl
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hi Freddie, list,
Option 4 is to re-do your pool, using fewer disks per raidz2 vdev,
giving more vdevs to the pool, and thus increasing the IOps for the
whole pool.
On Dec 21, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Roman Naumenko ro...@naumenko.ca wrote:
On Dec 21, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Michael Herf
mbh...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone who's lost data this way: were you doing
weekly scrubs, or
did you find out about the simultaneous failures
after not touching
the bits for
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
