Back to this topic, since I cannot touch snapshots I thought I could simply
remove the corrupt files after the last snapshot, so the next incremental
backup will notice the difference (i.e. no file) and overwrite the
corrupt-and-removed files with valid ones. This was the plan.
However, while
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
> LOL. Well, for what it's worth, there are three common pronunciations for
> btrfs. Butterfs, Betterfs, and B-Tree FS (because it's based on b-trees.)
> Check wikipedia. (This isn't really true, but I like to joke, after saying
> somet
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus
>
> Is it really B-Tree based? Apple's HFS+ is B-Tree based and falls
> apart (in terms of performance) when you get too many objects in one
> FS, which is specifically what drove us
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of sbre...@hotmail.com
>
> What does this error mean? I cannot even "scan" the ZFS file system
> anymore? Is there any "fsck" for ZFS?
There is zpool scrub. It will check all the checksums previ
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 14:40, Paul Kraus wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
> wrote:
>
>> LOL. Well, for what it's worth, there are three common pronunciations for
>> btrfs. Butterfs, Betterfs, and B-Tree FS (because it's based on b-trees.)
>> Check wikipedia. (This i
Actually a regular file (on a RAID1 setup with gmirror and 2 identical disks)
is used as backing store for ZFS. The hardware should be fine as nothing else
seems to be corrupt.
Wonder if a server reset could have caused the issue?
There are 2 things that surely do not work perfectly:
1. St
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus
>>
>> Is it really B-Tree based? Apple's HFS+ is B-Tree based and falls
>> apart (in terms of performance) when you get to
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:39:25 +, wrote:
>
>Is ZFS not recommended with file backing store?
>
>From man zpool:
SunOS 5.11 Last change: 24 Nov 2009 2
System Administration Commandszpool(1M)
Virtual Devices (vdevs)
A "virtual device" descr
I see, with great pleasure, that ZFS in Solaris 11 has a new
aclmode=mask property.
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E23824_01/html/821-1448/gbscy.html#gkkkp
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E23824_01/html/821-1448/gbchf.html#gljyz
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E23824_01/html/821-1462/zfs
> From: Nico Williams [mailto:n...@cryptonector.com]
>
> > B-trees should be logarithmic time, which is the best O() you can possibly
> > achieve. So if HFS+ is dog slow, it's an implementation detail and not a
> > general fault of b-trees.
>
> Hash tables can do much better than O(log N) for se
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of sbre...@hotmail.com
>
> Actually a regular file (on a RAID1 setup with gmirror and 2 identical
disks) is
> used as backing store for ZFS. The hardware should be fine as nothing else
> seems to
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> I see, with great pleasure, that ZFS in Solaris 11 has a new
> aclmode=mask property.
Also, congratulations on shipping. And thank you for implementing aclmode=mask.
Nico
--
___
zfs-discuss maili
12 matches
Mail list logo
