Re: [zfs-discuss] how to set up solaris os and cache within one SSD

2011/11/11 Jeff Savit > On 11/10/2011 06:38 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss > -boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Savit > > Also, not a good idea for > performance to partition the disks as you suggest. > > Not totally tru

Re: [zfs-discuss] how to set up solaris os and cache within one SSD

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:52 PM, darkblue wrote: >>> I recommend buying either the oracle hardware or the nexenta on whatever >>> they recommend for hardware. >>> >>> Definitely DO NOT run the free version of solaris without updates and >>> expect it to be reliable. >> >> That's a bit strong.  Yes

Re: [zfs-discuss] how to set up solaris os and cache within one SSD

On 11/11/11 08:52 PM, darkblue wrote: 2011/11/11 Ian Collins mailto:i...@ianshome.com>> On 11/11/11 02:42 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-

Re: [zfs-discuss] how to set up solaris os and cache within one SSD

2011/11/11 Ian Collins > On 11/11/11 08:52 PM, darkblue wrote: > >> >> >> 2011/11/11 Ian Collins mailto:i...@ianshome.com>> >> >> >>On 11/11/11 02:42 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> >>From: >> zfs-discuss-bounces@**opensolaris.org >> >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] how to set up solaris os and cache within one SSD

On 11/11/2011 01:02 AM, darkblue wrote: 2011/11/11 Jeff Savit > On 11/10/2011 06:38 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sync=disabled property

> disk. This behavior is what makes NFS over ZFS slow without a slog: NFS does > everything O_SYNC by default, No, it doesn't. Howver VMWare by default issues all writes as SYNC. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sync=disabled property

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011, Tomas Forsman wrote: Loss of data as seen by the client can definitely occur. When a client writes something, and something else ends up on disk - I call that corruption. Doesn't matter whose fault it is and technical details, the wrong data was stored despite the client b

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

Paul Kraus wrote: >> My main reasons for using zfs are pretty basic compared to some here > > What are they ? (the reasons for using ZFS) All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS, and it's one that is clearly being completely ignored by btrfs: ease of use. The zfs

[zfs-discuss] zfs xattr not supported prevents smb mount

Hello I have some zfs filesystems shared via cifs. Some of them I can mount and others I can't. They appear identical in properties and ACLs; the only difference I've found is the successful ones have xattr {A--m} and the others have {}. But I can't set that xattr on the share to see if

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Linder, Doug wrote: > Paul Kraus wrote: > >>> My main reasons for using zfs are pretty basic compared to some here >> >> What are they ? (the reasons for using ZFS) > > All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS, and > it's one that is

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Paul Kraus wrote: > The command syntax paradigm of zfs (command sub-command object > parameters) is not unique to zfs, but seems to have been the "way of > doing things" in Solaris 10. The _new_ functions of Solaris 10 were > all this way (to the best of my knowled

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug > > All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS, and it's > one that is clearly being completely ignored by btrfs: ease of use. The zfs > command set is

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sync=disabled property

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn > > data formats like > databases could become internally corrupted due to the data written in > a zfs transaction group not being representative of a coherent > database transa

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug >> >> All technical reasons aside, I can tell you one huge reason I love ZFS, > and it's >> one that is clearly being co

Re: [zfs-discuss] weird bug with Seagate 3TB USB3 drive

On Nov 10, 2011, at 7:47 PM, David Magda wrote: > On Nov 10, 2011, at 18:41, Daniel Carosone wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 08:17:55PM -0400, John D Groenveld wrote: >>> Under both Solaris 10 and Solaris 11x, I receive the evil message: >>> | I/O request is not aligned with 4096 disk sector

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sync=disabled property

Generally, there should not be "corruption", only a roll-back to a previous state. *HOWEVER*, its possible that an application which has state outside of the filesystem (such as effects on network peers, or even state written to *other* filesystems) will encounter a consistency problem as the a