Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS best practice for FreeBSD?

2012-10-14 Thread Jim Klimov
2012-10-14 1:56, Ian Collins пишет: On 10/13/12 22:13, Jim Klimov wrote: 2012-10-13 0:41, Ian Collins пишет: On 10/13/12 02:12, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote: #1 It seems common, at least to me, that I'll build a server with let's say, 12 disk slots, and

Re: [zfs-discuss] Using L2ARC on an AdHoc basis.

2012-10-14 Thread Jim Klimov
2012-10-14 2:41, Michael Armstrong wrote: Ok, so it is possible to remove. Good to know, thanks . I move the pool maybe once a month for a few days, on an otherwise daily used fixed location. So thought the warm up allowance may be worth it. I guess I just wanted to know if adding a cache

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS best practice for FreeBSD?

2012-10-14 Thread Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris)
From: Ian Collins [mailto:i...@ianshome.com] On 10/13/12 02:12, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote: There are at least a couple of solid reasons *in favor* of partitioning. #1 It seems common, at least to me, that I'll build a server with let's say, 12

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS best practice for FreeBSD?

2012-10-14 Thread Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris)
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey A solid point. I don't. This doesn't mean you can't - it just means I don't. This response was kind of long-winded. So here's a simpler version: Suppose 6 disks in a

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS best practice for FreeBSD?

2012-10-14 Thread Jim Klimov
2012-10-14 17:51, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote: zpool create datapool \ mirror c0t0d0p2 c0t1d0p2 \ mirror c0t2d0p1 c0t3d0p1 \ mirror c0t2d0p2 c0t3d0p2 \ mirror c0t4d0p1 c0t5d0p1 \ mirror c0t4d0p2 c0t4d0p2 Add a spare? A seventh disk, c0t6d0 Partition it. add

[zfs-discuss] Fixing device names after disk shuffle

2012-10-14 Thread Paul van der Zwan
I moved some disk around on my Openindiana system and now the names that are shown by zpool status no longer match the names format shows: $ zpool status pool: datapool state: ONLINE scan: scrub repaired 0 in 7h58m with 0 errors on Wed Oct 3 01:13:47 2012 config: NAMESTATE

Re: [zfs-discuss] Fixing device names after disk shuffle

2012-10-14 Thread Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris)
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul van der Zwan What was c5t2 is now c7t1 and what was c4t1 is now c5t2. Everything seems to be working fine, it's just a bit confusing. That ... Doesn't make any sense. Did you

Re: [zfs-discuss] Fixing device names after disk shuffle

2012-10-14 Thread Paul van der Zwan
On 14 Oct 2012, at 20:56 , Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul van der Zwan What was c5t2 is now c7t1