From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Murray Cullen
I've copied an old home directory from an install of OS 134 to the data
pool on my OI install. Opensolaris apparently had wine installed as I
now have a link to / in my data
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Anonymous
Hi. I have a spare off the shelf consumer PC and was thinking about loading
Solaris on it for a development box since I use Studio @work and like it
better than gcc. I was thinking
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Dan Swartzendruber
My first thought was everything is
hitting in ARC, but that is clearly not the case, since it WAS gradually
filling up
the cache device.
When things become colder in
I send a replication data stream from one host to another. (and receive).
I discovered that after receiving, I need to remove the auto-snapshot property
on the receiving side, and set the readonly property on the receiving side, to
prevent accidental changes (including auto-snapshots.)
Question
From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
Question #2: What's the best way to find the latest matching snap on both
the source and destination? At present, it seems, I'll have to build a list
of
sender snaps, and a list of receiver snaps, and parse and search them, till I
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
Question #2: What's the best way to find the latest matching snap on both
the source and destination? At present, it seems, I'll have to build a list
of
sender snaps,
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Dave Pooser
Unfortunately I did not realize that zvols require disk space sufficient
to duplicate the zvol, and my zpool wasn't big enough. After a false start
(zpool add is dangerous when
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bill Sommerfeld
But simply creating the snapshot on the sending side should be no
problem.
By default, zvols have reservations equal to their size (so that writes
don't fail due to the
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
Got me wondering: how many reads of a block from spinning rust
suffice for it to ultimately get into L2ARC? Just one so it
gets into a recent-read list of the ARC and then expires
When I create a 50G zvol, it gets volsize 50G, and it gets used and
refreservation 51.6G
I have some filesystems already in use, hosting VM's, and I'd like to mimic the
refreservation setting on the filesystem, as if I were smart enough from the
beginning to have used the zvol. So my question
Here's another one.
Two identical servers are sitting side by side. They could be connected to
each other via anything (presently using crossover ethernet cable.) And
obviously they both connect to the regular LAN. You want to serve VM's from at
least one of them, and even if the VM's
From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms]
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:45 PM
I would suggest if you're doing a crossover between systems, you use
infiniband rather than ethernet. You can eBay a 40Gb IB card for under
$300. Quite frankly the performance issues should become almost a
Formerly, if you interrupted a zfs receive, it would leave a clone with a % in
its name, and you could find it via zdb -d and then you could destroy the
clone, and then you could destroy the filesystem you had interrupted receiving.
That was considered a bug, and it was fixed, I think by Sun.
I am confused, because I would have expected a 1-to-1 mapping, if you create an
iscsi target on some system, you would have to specify which LUN it connects
to. But that is not the case...
I read the man pages for sbdadm, stmfadm, itadm, and iscsiadm. I read some
online examples, where you
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
If they are close enough for crossover cable where the cable is UTP,
then they are
close enough for SAS.
Pardon my ignorance, can a system easily serve its local storage
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
--- How how will improving ZIL latency improve performance of my pool that
is used as a NFS share to ESXi hosts which forces sync writes only (i.e will
it be
noticeable in an end-to-end context)?
Just perform a bunch of
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ariel T. Glenn
I have the same issue as described by Ned in his email. I had a zfs
recv going that deadlocked against a zfs list; after a day of leaving
them hung I finally had to hard
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
it doesn't work right - It turns out, iscsi
devices (And I presume SAS devices) are not removable storage. That
means, if the device goes offline and comes back online
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Schweiss, Chip
How can I determine for sure that my ZIL is my bottleneck? If it is the
bottleneck, is it possible to keep adding mirrored pairs of SSDs to the ZIL to
make it faster? Or
From: Andrew Gabriel [mailto:andrew.gabr...@cucumber.demon.co.uk]
Temporarily set sync=disabled
Or, depending on your application, leave it that way permanently. I know,
for the work I do, most systems I support at most locations have
sync=disabled. It all depends on the workload.
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Schweiss, Chip
. The ZIL can have any number of SSDs attached either mirror or
individually. ZFS will stripe across these in a raid0 or raid10 fashion
depending on how you configure.
I'm
From: Jim Klimov [mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru]
Well, on my system that I complained a lot about last year,
I've had a physical pool, a zvol in it, shared and imported
over iscsi on loopback (or sometimes initiated from another
box), and another pool inside that zvol ultimately.
Ick. And it
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
There are also loops ;)
# svcs -d filesystem/usr
STATE STIMEFMRI
online Aug_27 svc:/system/scheduler:default
...
# svcs -d scheduler
STATE
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Schweiss, Chip
If I get to build it this system, it will house a decent size VMware
NFS storage w/ 200+ VMs, which will be dual connected via 10Gbe. This is all
medical imaging research.
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Neil Perrin
The ZIL code chains blocks together and these are allocated round robin
among slogs or
if they don't exist then the main pool devices.
So, if somebody is doing sync writes as
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
Well, it seems just like a peculiar effect of required vs. optional
dependencies. The loop is in the default installation. Details:
# svcprop filesystem/usr | grep scheduler
From: Neil Perrin [mailto:neil.per...@oracle.com]
In general - yes, but it really depends. Multiple synchronous writes of any
size
across multiple file systems will fan out across the log devices. That is
because there is a separate independent log chain for each file system.
Also large
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tiernan OToole
I am in the process of planning a system which will have 2 ZFS servers, one on
site, one off site. The on site server will be used by workstations and
servers
in house, and
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
I must be missing something - I don't see anything above that indicates any
required vs optional dependencies.
Ok, I see that now. (Thanks to the SMF FAQ).
A dependency
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote:
I do have to suffer a slow, glitchy WAN to a remote server and rather than
send stream files, I broke the
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Albert Shih
I'm actually running ZFS under FreeBSD. I've a question about how many
disks I can have in one pool.
At this moment I'm running with one server (FreeBSD 9.0) with 4 MD1200
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Richard Elling
If the recipient system doesn't support zfs receive, [...]
On that note, is there a minimal user-mode zfs thing that would allow
receiving a stream into an image file? No
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Sami Tuominen
Unfortunately there aren't any snapshots.
The version of zpool is 15. Is it safe to upgrade that?
Is zpool clear -F supported or of any use here?
The only thing that will be
From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
Read it again he asked, On that note, is there a minimal user-mode zfs thing
that would allow
receiving a stream into an image file? Something like:
zfs send ... | ssh user@host cat file
He didn't say he wanted to cat to a
From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
Pedantically, a pool can be made in a file, so it works the same...
Pool can only be made in a file, by a system that is able to create a pool.
Point is, his receiving system runs linux and doesn't have any zfs; his
receiving system is
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of andy thomas
According to a Sun document called something like 'ZFS best practice' I
read some time ago, best practice was to use the entire disk for ZFS and
not to partition or slice it in
Jim, I'm trying to contact you off-list, but it doesn't seem to be working.
Can you please contact me off-list?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
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
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
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
Can anyone explain to me what the openindiana-1 filesystem is all about? I
thought it was the backup copy of the openindiana filesystem, when you apply
OS updates, but that doesn't seem to be the case...
I have time-slider enabled for rpool/ROOT/openindiana. It has a daily snapshot
(amongst
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ian Collins
You have to create pools/filesystems with the older versions used by the
destination machine.
Apparently zpool create -d -o version=28 you might want to do on the new
system...
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of James C. McPherson
As far as I'm aware, having an rpool on multipathed devices
is fine.
Even a year ago, a new system I bought from Oracle came with multipath devices
for all devices by
Yikes, I'm back at it again, and so frustrated.
For about 2-3 weeks now, I had the iscsi mirror configuration in production, as
previously described. Two disks on system 1 mirror against two disks on system
2, everything done via iscsi, so you could zpool export on machine 1, and then
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Richard Elling
At some point, people will bitterly regret some zpool upgrade with no way
back.
uhm... and how is that different than anything else in the software world?
No attempt at
If you rm /etc/zfs/zpool.cache and reboot... The system is smart enough (at
least in my case) to re-import rpool, and another pool, but it didn't figure
out to re-import some other pool.
How does the system decide, in the absence of rpool.cache, which pools it's
going to import at boot?
From: Timothy Coalson [mailto:tsc...@mst.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 9:43 PM
A shot in the dark here, but perhaps one of the disks involved is taking a
long
time to return from reads, but is returning eventually, so ZFS doesn't notice
the problem? Watching 'iostat -x' for busy
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Gary Mills
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 11:40:31AM +0200, Bogdan Ćulibrk wrote:
Follow up question regarding this: is there any way to disable
automatic import of any non-rpool on boot
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
If you rm /etc/zfs/zpool.cache and reboot... The system is smart enough (at
least in my case) to re-import rpool, and another pool, but it didn't figure
out
to re-import
From: Jim Klimov [mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 7:26 AM
Are you sure that the system with failed mounts came up NOT in a
read-only root moment, and that your removal of /etc/zfs/zpool.cache
did in fact happen (and that you did not then boot into an earlier
BE with
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
One idea I have is that a laptop which only has a single HDD slot,
often has SD/MMC cardreader slots. If populated with a card for L2ARC,
can it be expected to boost the
From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
At some point, people will bitterly regret some zpool upgrade with no way
back.
uhm... and how is that different than anything else in the software world?
No attempt at backward compatibility, and no downgrade path, not even by
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Karl Wagner
The only thing I think Oracle should have done differently is to allow
either a downgrade or creating a send stream in a lower version
(reformatting the data where necessary, and
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Karl Wagner
I can only speak anecdotally, but I believe it does.
Watching zpool iostat it does read all data on both disks in a mirrored
pair.
Logically, it would not make sense not to
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
Logically, yes - I agree this is what we expect to be done.
However, at least with the normal ZFS reading pipeline, reads
of redundant copies and parities only kick in if the
From: Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris)
Performance is much better if you use mirrors instead of raid. (Sequential
performance is just as good either way, but sequential IO is unusual for most
use cases. Random IO is much better with mirrors, and that includes scrubs
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Fajar A. Nugraha
So my
suggestion is actually just present one huge 25TB LUN to zfs and let
the SAN handle redundancy.
Oh - No
Definitely let zfs handle the redundancy. Because ZFS is
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
I tend to agree that parity calculations likely
are faster (even if not all parities are simple XORs - that would
be silly for double- or triple-parity sets which may use
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ian Collins
Have have a recently upgraded (to Solaris 11.1) test system that fails
to mount its filesystems on boot.
Running zfs mount -a results in the odd error
#zfs mount -a
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ian Collins
ioctl(3, ZFS_IOC_OBJECT_STATS, 0xF706BBB0)
The system boots up fine in the original BE. The root (only) pool in a
single drive.
Any ideas?
devfsadm -Cv
rm
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tiernan OToole
I have a Dedicated server in a data center in Germany, and it has 2 3TB
drives,
but only software RAID. I have got them to install VMWare ESXi and so far
everything is going
From: Dan Swartzendruber [mailto:dswa...@druber.com]
I'm curious here. Your experience is 180 degrees opposite from mine. I
run an all in one in production and I get native disk performance, and
ESXi virtual disk I/O is faster than with a physical SAN/NAS for the NFS
datastore, since the
From: Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris)
Stuff like that. I could go on, but it basically comes down to: With
openindiana, you can do a lot more than you can with ESXi. Because it's a
complete OS. You simply have more freedom, better performance, less
maintenance
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
the VM running a ZFS OS enjoys PCI-pass-through, so it gets dedicated
hardware access to the HBA(s) and harddisks at raw speeds, with no
extra layers of lags in between.
Ah.
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Karl Wagner
I am just wondering why you export the ZFS system through NFS?
I have had much better results (albeit spending more time setting up) using
iSCSI. I found that performance was
From: Dan Swartzendruber [mailto:dswa...@druber.com]
Now you have me totally confused. How does your setup get data from the
guest to the OI box? If thru a wire, if it's gig-e, it's going to be
1/3-1/2 the speed of the other way. If you're saying you use 10gig or
some-such, we're talking
From: Dan Swartzendruber [mailto:dswa...@druber.com]
I have to admit Ned's (what do I call you?)idea is interesting. I may give
it a try...
Yup, officially Edward, most people call me Ned.
I contributed to the OI VirtualBox instructions. See here:
http://wiki.openindiana.org/oi/VirtualBox
From: Karl Wagner [mailto:k...@mouse-hole.com]
If I was doing this now, I would probably use the ZFS aware OS bare metal,
but I still think I would use iSCSI to export the ZVols (mainly due to the
ability
to use it across a real network, hence allowing guests to be migrated simply)
Yes,
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:57:21AM +, Edward Ned Harvey
(opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote:
Yes you can, with the help of Dell, install OMSA to get the web
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Dan Swartzendruber
Well, I think I give up for now. I spent quite a few hours over the last
couple of days trying to get gnome desktop working on bare-metal OI,
followed by virtualbox.
I
When I google around for anyone else who cares and may have already solved the
problem before I came along - it seems we're all doing the same thing for the
same reason. If by any chance you are running VirtualBox on a solaris /
opensolaris / openidiana / whatever ZFS host, you could of course
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Geoff Nordli
Instead of using vdi, I use comstar targets and then use vbox built-in scsi
initiator.
Based on my recent experiences, I am hesitant to use the iscsi ... I don't know
if it was
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
Well, as a simple stone-age solution (to simplify your SMF approach),
you can define custom attributes on dataset, zvols included. I think
a custom attr must include a colon : in
From: Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris)
Found quite a few posts on
various
forums of people complaining that RDP with external auth doesn't work (or
not reliably),
Actually, it does work, and it works reliably, but the setup is very much not
straightforward
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
An easier event to trigger is the starting of the virtualbox guest. Upon vbox
guest starting, check the service properties for that instance of vboxsvc, and
chmod if
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Kroenert
I chopped into a few slices - p0 (partition table), p1 128GB, p2 60gb.
As part of my work, I have used it both as a RAW device (cxtxdxp1) and
wrapped partition 1 with a
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
As for ZIL - even if it is used with the in-pool variant, I don't
think your setup needs any extra steps to disable it (as Edward likes
to suggest), and most other setups don't
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ian Collins
I look after a remote server that has two iSCSI pools. The volumes for
each pool are sparse volumes and a while back the target's storage
became full, causing weird and
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
I wonder if it would make weird sense to get the boxes, forfeit the
cool-looking Fishworks, and install Solaris/OI/Nexenta/whatever to
get the most flexibility and bang for a
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Sami Tuominen
How can one remove a directory containing corrupt files or a corrupt file
itself? For me rm just gives input/output error.
I was hoping to see somebody come up with an answer
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
can I make e.g. LSI SAS3442E
directly do SSD caching (it says something about CacheCade,
but I'm not sure it's an OS-side driver thing), as it
is supposed to boost IOPS?
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
I really hope someone better versed in compression - like Saso -
would chime in to say whether gzip-9 vs. lzjb (or lz4) sucks in
terms of read-speeds from the pools. My HDD-based
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Freddie Cash
And you can try 'zpool online' on the failed drive to see if it comes back
online.
Be cautious here - I have an anecdote, which might represent a trend in best
practice, or it
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Chris Dunbar - Earthside, LLC
# zpool replace tank c11t4d0
# zpool clear tank
I would expect this to work, or detach/attach. You should scrub periodically,
and ensure no errors after
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
this is
the part I am not certain about - it is roughly as cheap to READ the
gzip-9 datasets as it is to read lzjb (in terms of CPU decompression).
Nope. I know LZJB is not LZO,
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Enda o'Connor - Oracle Ireland -
Say I have an ldoms guest that is using zfs root pool that is mirrored,
and the two sides of the mirror are coming from two separate vds
servers, that is
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Freddie Cash
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Albert Shih albert.s...@obspm.fr wrote:
Le 01/12/2012 ? 08:33:31-0700, Jan Owoc a ?crit
2) replace the disks with larger ones one-by-one,
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Fred Liu
BTW, anyone played NDMP in solaris? Or is it feasible to transfer snapshot via
NDMP protocol?
I've heard you could, but I've never done it. Sorry I'm not much help, except
as a
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of sol
I added a 3TB Seagate disk (ST3000DM001) and ran the 'format' command but
it crashed and dumped core.
However the zpool 'create' command managed to create a pool on the whole
disk
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Netherton
At this point, the only thing would be to use 11.1 to create a new pool at
151's
version (-o version=) and top level dataset (-O version=). Recreate the file
system
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of bob netherton
You can, with recv, override any property in the sending stream that can
be
set from the command line (ie, a writable).
# zfs send repo/support@cpu-0412 | zfs recv -o
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
zfs send foo/bar@42 | zfs receive -o compression=on,sync=disabled biz/baz
I have not yet tried this syntax. Because you mentioned it, I looked for it
in
the man page,
From: Cindy Swearingen [mailto:cindy.swearin...@oracle.com]
Which man page are you referring to?
I see the zfs receive -o syntax in the S11 man page.
Oh ... It's the latest openindiana. So I suppose it must be a new feature
post-rev-28 in the non-open branch...
But it's no big deal. I
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
I have a pool of 8x ST31000340AS on an LSI 8-port adapter as
a raidz3 (no compression nor dedup) with reasonable bonnie++
1.03 values, e.g. 145 MByte/s Seq-Write @ 48% CPU and
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn
If almost all of the I/Os are 4K, maybe your ZVOLs should use a
volblocksize of 4K? This seems like the most obvious improvement.
Oh, I forgot to mention - The above logic
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Stephan Budach
I am always experiencing chksum errors while scrubbing my zpool(s), but
I never experienced chksum errors while resilvering. Does anybody know
why that would be?
When you
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
And regarding the considerable activity - AFAIK there is little way
for ZFS to reliably read and test TXGs newer than X
My understanding is like this: When you make a snapshot,
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nico Williams
I've wanted a system where dedup applies only to blocks being written
that have a good chance of being dups of others.
I think one way to do this would be to keep a scalable
From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 5:39 PM
the space allocation more closely resembles a variant
of mirroring,
like some vendors call RAID-1E
Awesome, thank you. :-)
___
zfs-discuss mailing
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nico Williams
To decide if a block needs dedup one would first check the Bloom
filter, then if the block is in it, use the dedup code path, else the
non-dedup codepath and insert the block
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo