Darren J Moffat wrote:
Dataset rename restrictions
---
On rename a dataset can non be moved out of its wrapping key hierarchy
ie where it inherits the keysource property from. This is best explained
by example:
# zfs get -r keysource tank
NAMEPROPERTY
While testing a zpool with a different storage adapter using my blkdev
device, I did a test which made a disk unavailable -- all attempts to
read from it report EIO.
I expected my configuration (which is a 3 disk test, with 2 disks in a
RAIDZ and a hot spare) to work where the hot spare would
On 04/ 5/10 05:28 AM, Eric Schrock wrote:
On Apr 5, 2010, at 3:38 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Am I missing something here? Under what conditions can I expect hot spares to
be recruited?
Hot spares are activated by the zfs-retire agent in response to a list.suspect
event containing
On 5/24/2010 2:48 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
I recently got a new SSD (ocz vertex LE 50gb)
Not familiar with that model
It seems to work really well as a ZIL performance wise. My question
is, how safe is it? I know it doesn't have a supercap so lets' say
dataloss occursis it just
On 5/25/2010 2:55 AM, Vadim Comanescu wrote:
Is there any way you can display the parent of a dataset by zfs
(get/list) command ? I do not need to list for example for a dataset
all it's children by using -r just to get the parent on a child. There
are way's of grepping and doing some preg
On 5/25/2010 8:24 AM, Brandon High wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Vadim Comanescuva...@syneto.net wrote:
Is there any way you can display the parent of a dataset by zfs (get/list)
command ? I do not need to list for example for a dataset all it's children
by using -r just to get
The USB stack in OpenSolaris is ... complex (STREAMs based!), and
probably not the most performant or reliable portion of the system.
Furthermore, the mass storage layer, which encapsulates SCSI, is not
tuned for a high number of IOPS or low latencies, and the stack makes
different
On 5/26/2010 11:47 AM, Dmitry Sorokin wrote:
Hi All,
I was just wandering if the issue that affects NFS availability when
deleting large snapshots on ZFS data sets with dedup enabled was fixed.
There is a fix for this in b141 of the OpenSolaris source product. We
are looking at
On 5/27/2010 10:33 AM, sensille wrote:
(resent because of received bounce)
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: sensille [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
So this brings me back to the question I indirectly asked in the
middle of a
much longer previous email -
Is there some way, in software, to detect
On 5/27/2010 12:21 PM, Carson Gaspar wrote:
Jan Kryl wrote:
the bug (6798273) has been closed as incomplete with following
note:
I cannot reproduce any issue with the given testcase on b137.
So you should test this with b137 or newer build. There have
been some extensive changes going to
I share filesystems all the time this way, and have never had this
problem. My first guess would be a problem with NFS or directory
permissions. You are using NFS, right?
- Garrett
On 5/27/2010 1:02 PM, Cassandra Pugh wrote:
I was wondering if there is a special option to share out a
Using a stripe of mirrors (RAID0) you can get the benefits of multiple
spindle performance, easy expansion support (just add new mirrors to the
end of the raid0 stripe), and 100% data redundancy. If you can afford
to pay double for your storage (the cost of mirroring), this is IMO the
best
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 10:35 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
On Thu, June 3, 2010 10:15, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Using a stripe of mirrors (RAID0) you can get the benefits of multiple
spindle performance, easy expansion support (just add new mirrors to the
end of the raid0 stripe), and 100
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 12:03 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
In an 8-bay chassis, there are other concerns, too. Do I keep space open
for a hot spare? There's no real point in a hot spare if you have only
one vdev; that is, 8-drive RAIDZ3 is
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 08:50 -0700, Marty Scholes wrote:
Maybe I have been unlucky too many times doing storage admin in the 90s, but
simple mirroring still scares me. Even with a hot spare (you do have one,
right?) the rebuild window leaves the entire pool exposed to a single failure.
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 12:22 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
If you're clever, you'll also try to make sure each side of the mirror
is on a different controller, and if you have enough controllers
available, you'll also try to balance the controllers across stripes.
Something like this ?
#
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:49 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
hot spares in place, but I have the bays reserved for that use.
In the latest upgrade, I added 4 2.5 hot-swap bays (which got the system
disks out of the 3.5 hot-swap bays). I have two free, and that's the
form-factor SSDs come in
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 11:36 -0700, Ketan wrote:
Thanx Rick .. but this guide does not offer any method to reduce the ARC
cache size on the fly without rebooting the system. And the system's memory
utilization is running very high since 2 weeks now and just 5G of memory is
free. And the arc
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 16:03 +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 04/06/2010 15:46, James Carlson wrote:
Petr Benes wrote:
add to /etc/system something like (value depends on your needs)
* limit greedy ZFS to 4 GiB
set zfs:zfs_arc_max = 4294967296
And yes, this has nothing to do
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 07:51 -0700, Christopher George wrote:
No Slogs as I haven't seen a compliant SSD drive yet.
As the architect of the DDRdrive X1, I can state categorically the X1
correctly implements the SCSI Synchronize Cache (flush cache)
command.
Christopher George
Founder/CTO
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 11:49 -0700, Richard Jahnel wrote:
Do you lose the data if you lose that 9v feed at the same time the computer
losses power?
Yes. Hence the need for a separate UPS.
- Garrett
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 13:32 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
On Jun 7, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Miles Nordin wrote:
the other difference is in the latest comstar which runs in
sync-everything mode by default, AIUI. Or it does use that mode only
when zvol-backed? Or something.
It depends on
You can hardly have too much. At least 8 GB, maybe 16 would be good.
The benefit will depend on your workload, but zfs and buffer cache will use it
all if you have a big enough read working set.
-- Garrett
Joe Auty j...@netmusician.org wrote:
I'm also noticing that I'm a little short on
For the record, with my driver (which is not the same as the one shipped
by the vendor), I was getting over 150K IOPS with a single DDRdrive X1.
It is possible to get very high IOPS with Solaris. However, it might be
difficult to get such high numbers with systems based on SCSI/SCSA.
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:41 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I am aware of (and this are many) explain, linking
against an independent work creates a collective work and no
derivative work.
The GPL would only hit if a derivative work was created but even under
US
Copyright law, a derivative
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 13:58 +0400, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rdsk/cXtYdZs0 bs=512
I did a test on my workstation a moment ago and got about 21k
IOPS from my sata drive (iostat).
The trick here of course is that this is sequentail
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 04:42 -0700, Arve Paalsrud wrote:
Hi,
We are currently building a storage box based on OpenSolaris/Nexenta using
ZFS.
Our hardware specifications are as follows:
Quad AMD G34 12-core 2.3 GHz (~110 GHz)
10 Crucial RealSSD (6Gb/s)
42 WD RAID Ed. 4 2TB disks + 6Gb/s
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 07:36 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
What I want to achieve is 2 GB/s+ NFS traffic against our ESX clusters
(also InfiniBand-based), with both dedupe and compression enabled in ZFS.
In general, both dedup and compression gain space by trading off performance.
You
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 18:33 +0200, Arve Paalsrud wrote:
What about the ZIL bandwidth in this case? I mean, could I stripe across
multiple devices to be able to handle higher throughput? Otherwise I would
still be limited to the performance of the unit itself (155 MB/s).
I think so.
So I've been working on solving a problem we noticed that when using
certain hot pluggable busses (think SAS/SATA hotplug here), that
removing a drive did not trigger any resulting response from either FMA
or ZFS *until* something tried to use that device. (This removal of a
drive can be thought
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 16:16 -0400, Eric Schrock wrote:
On Jun 17, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Anyway, I'm happy to share the code, and even go through the
request-sponsor process to push this upstream. I would like the
opinions of the ZFS and FMA teams though
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 17:53 -0400, Eric Schrock wrote:
On Jun 17, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
I actually started with DKIOCGSTATE as my first approach, modifying
sd.c. But I had problems because what I found is that nothing was
issuing this ioctl properly except
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 18:38 -0400, Eric Schrock wrote:
On Jun 17, 2010, at 6:13 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
So how do you diagnose the situation where someone trips over a cable,
or where the drive was bumped and detached from the cable? I guess I'm
OK with the idea
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 09:07 -0400, Eric Schrock wrote:
On Jun 18, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 18/06/2010 00:18, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 18:38 -0400, Eric Schrock wrote:
On the SS7000 series, you get an alert that the enclosure has been
if Nexenta were to get credit for the fix.)
- Garrett
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 09:26 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 09:07 -0400, Eric Schrock wrote:
On Jun 18, 2010, at 4:56 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 18/06/2010 00:18, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On Thu, 2010-06
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 21:07 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
But that won't solve the OP's problem, which was that OpenSolaris
doesn't support his hardware. Nexenta has the same hardware
limitations as OpenSolaris.
AFAICT, the OP's problem is with a keyboard. The vagaries of
keyboards
is
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 21:54 -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 6/27/2010 9:07 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
On Jun 27, 2010, at 8:52 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
But that won't solve the OP's problem, which was that OpenSolaris doesn't
support his hardware. Nexenta has the same hardware
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 05:16 -0700, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
Yes...they're still running...but being aware that a power failure causing an
unexpected poweroff may make the pool unreadable is a pain
Yes. Patches should be available.
Or adoption may be lowering a lot...
I don't have access
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 22:28 +0200, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
To be safe, the protocol needs to be able to discover that the devices
(host or disk) has been disconnected and reconnected or has been reset
and that either parts assumptions about the state of the other has to
be invalidated.
I
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 16:41 -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 01:35:31PM -0700, valrh...@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, for my purposes, it doesn't seem like a ZIL is necessary? I'm
the only user of the fileserver, so there probably won't be more than
two or three computers,
I am sorry you feel that way. I will look at your issue as soon as I am able,
but I should say that it is almost certain that whatever the problem is, it
probably is inherited from OpenSolaris and the build of NCP you were testing
was indeed not the final release so some issues are not
Compared to b134? Yes! We have fixed many bugs that still exist in 134.
Fajar A. Nugraha fa...@fajar.net wrote:
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com wrote:
I am sorry you feel that way. I will look at your issue as soon as I am
able, but I should say
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 10:09 -0700, Mark Christooph wrote:
I had an interesting dilemma recently and I'm wondering if anyone here can
illuminate on why this happened.
I have a number of pools, including the root pool, in on-board disks on the
server. I also have one pool on a SAN disk,
I believe that long term folks are working on solving this problem. I
believe bp_rewrite is needed for this work.
Mid/short term, the solution to me at least seems to be to migrate your
data to a new zpool on the newly configured array, etc. Most
enterprises don't incrementally upgrade an array
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 17:33 -0400, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
Thank goodness! Where, specifically, does one obtain this firmware for
SPARC?
Firmware is firmware -- it should not be host-cpu specific. (At least
one *hopes* not, although I *suppose* it is possible to have endian
specific interfaces
or not.
- Garrett
thx
jake
On 07/07/10 17:46, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 17:33 -0400, Jacob Ritorto wrote:
Thank goodness! Where, specifically, does one obtain this firmware for
SPARC?
Firmware is firmware -- it should not be host-cpu specific
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 18:52 -0700, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 7/7/2010 6:33 PM, Peter Taps wrote:
Folks,
As you may have heard, NetApp has a lawsuit against Sun in 2007 (and now
carried over to Oracle) for patent infringement with the zfs file system.
Now, NetApp is taking a stronger
You want the write cache enabled, for sure, with ZFS. ZFS will do the
right thing about ensuring write cache is flushed when needed.
For the case of a single JBOD, I don't find it surprising that UFS beats
ZFS. ZFS is designed for more complex configurations, and provides much
better data
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 00:23 +0200, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
On 8 jul 2010, at 17.23, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
You want the write cache enabled, for sure, with ZFS. ZFS will do the
right thing about ensuring write cache is flushed when needed.
That is not for sure at all, it all depends
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 18:46 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand Augereau
is there a way to compute very quickly some hash of a file in a zfs?
As I understand it, everything is
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 10:23 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2010-Jul-09 06:46:54 +0800, Edward Ned Harvey solar...@nedharvey.com
wrote:
md5 is significantly slower (but surprisingly not much slower) and it's a
cryptographic hash. Probably not necessary for your needs.
As someone else has
On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 15:02 -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
ab == Alex Blewitt alex.blew...@gmail.com writes:
ab All Mac Minis have FireWire - the new ones have FW800.
I tried attaching just two disks to a ZFS host using firewire, and it
worked very badly for me. I found:
1. The
First off, you need to test 3.0.3 if you're using dedup. Earlier
versions had an unduly large number of issues when used with dedup.
Hopefully with 3.0.3 we've got the bulk of the problems resolved. ;-)
Secondly, from your stack backtrace, yes, it appears ips is implicated.
If I had source for
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 17:05 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Linder, Doug wrote:
Out of sheer curiosity - and I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering -
how does ZFS make money for Oracle when they don't charge for it? Do you
think it's such an important feature that it's a big factor in
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 12:55 -0700, Brandon High wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Garrett D'Amore
garr...@nexenta.com wrote:
Btw, if you want a commercially supported and maintained
product, have
you looked at NexentaStor? Regardless of what happens
Hey Kris (glad to see someone from my QCOM days!):
It should automatically clear itself when you replace the disk. Right
now you're still degraded since you don't have full redundancy.
- Garrett
On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 16:10 -0700, Kris Kasner wrote:
Hi Folks..
I have a system that
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:51 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us]
A private license, with support and indemnification from Sun, would
shield Apple from any lawsuit from Netapp.
The patent holder is not compelled
in any way to
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 01:06 -0700, Peter Taps wrote:
Btw, if you want a commercially supported and maintained product, have
you looked at NexentaStor? Regardless of what happens with OpenSolaris,
we aren't going anywhere. (Full disclosure: I'm a Nexenta Systems
employee. :-)
--
On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:59 -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Once the code is in the open, it'll remain there. To quote Cory Doctorow
on this, it's easy release the source of a project, it's like adding ink
to your swimming pool, but it's a
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:48 +0900, BM wrote:
But hey, why to fork ZFS and mess with a stale Solaris code, if the
entire future of Solaris is a closed proprietary payware anyway? And
opposite to ZFS, we have totally free BTRFS that has been moved to the
kernel.org and is *free* and is for
recommend doing a scrub. There are probably other experts here
(Richard?) who can suggest a permanent fix.
- Garrett
Thanks again.
--Kris
Today at 16:15, Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com wrote:
Hey Kris (glad to see someone from my QCOM days!):
It should automatically clear
:12 -0700, Kris Kasner wrote:
Today at 09:44, Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com wrote:
Those corrupt files are corrupt forever. Until they are removed. I
recommend doing a scrub. There are probably other experts here
(Richard?) who can suggest a permanent fix.
Right, and we're OK
On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 13:47 -0500, Dave Pooser wrote:
Looks like the bug affects through snv_137. Patches are available from the
usual location-- https://pkg.sun.com/opensolaris/support for OpenSolaris.
Got a CR number for this? (Or a link to where I can find out about the
CVE number?)
1GB isn't enough for a real system. 2GB is a bare minimum. If you're
going to use dedup, plan on a *lot* more. I think 4 or 8 GB are good
for a typical desktop or home NAS setup. With FreeBSD you may be able
to get away with less. (Probably, in fact.)
Btw, instead of RAIDZ2, I'd recommend
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:57 -0700, Michael Johnson wrote:
us, why do you say I'd be able to get away with less RAM in FreeBSD
(as compared to NexentaStor, I'm assuming)? I don't know tons about
the OSs in
question; is FreeBSD just leaner in general?
Compared to Solaris, in my estimation,
On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 16:18 -0700, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
I would imagine that if it's read-mostly, it's a win, but
otherwise it costs more than it saves. Even more conventional
compression tends to be more resource intensive than decompression...
What I'm wondering is when dedup is
On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 01:28 -0700, tomwaters wrote:
Hi guys, I am about to reshape my data spool and am wondering what
performance diff. I can expect from the new config. Vs. The old.
The old config. Is a pool of a single vdev of 8 disks raidz2.
The new pool config is 2vdev's of 7 disk
On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 17:40 -0700, Chad Cantwell wrote:
fyi, everyone, I have some more info here. in short, rich lowe's 142 works
correctly (fast) on my hardware, while both my compilations (snv 143, snv 144)
and also the nexanta 3 rc2 kernel (134 with backports) are horribly slow.
The idea
So the next question is, lets figure out what richlowe did
differently. ;-)
- Garrett
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Your config makes me think this is an atypical ZFS configuration. As a
result, I'm not as concerned. But I think the multithread/concurrency
may be the biggest concern here. Perhaps the compilers are doing
something different that causes significant cache issues. (Perhaps the
compilers
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 07:56 -0700, Hernan F wrote:
Hi,
Out of pure curiosity, I was wondering, what would happen if one tries to use
a regular 7200RPM (or 10K) drive as slog or L2ARC (or both)?
I know these are designed with SSDs in mind, and I know it's possible to use
anything you want
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 17:12 +0200, Saso Kiselkov wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
If you plan on using it as a storage server for multimedia data
(movies), don't even bother considering compression, as most media files
already come heavily compressed. Dedup might still
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 02:21 -0400, Richard Lowe wrote:
I built in the normal fashion, with the CBE compilers
(cc: Sun C 5.9 SunOS_i386 Patch 124868-10 2009/04/30), and 12u1 lint.
I'm not subscribed to zfs-discuss, but have you established whether the
problematic build is DEBUG? (the bits I
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 09:42 -0700, Orvar Korvar wrote:
Are there any drawbacks to partition a SSD in two parts and use L2ARC on one
partition, and ZIL on the other? Any thoughts?
Its probably a reasonable approach. The ZIL can be fairly small... only
about 8 GB is probably sufficient for
Fundamentally, my recommendation is to choose NFS if your clients can
use it. You'll get a lot of potential advantages in the NFS/zfs
integration, so better performance. Plus you can serve multiple
clients, etc.
The only reason to use iSCSI is when you don't have a choice, IMO. You
should only
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 19:54 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com]
Fundamentally, my recommendation is to choose NFS if your clients can
use it. You'll get a lot of potential advantages in the NFS/zfs
integration, so better performance. Plus
On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 17:53 -0400, Saxon, Will wrote:
I think there may be very good reason to use iSCSI, if you're limited
to gigabit but need to be able to handle higher throughput for a
single client. I may be wrong, but I believe iSCSI to/from a single
initiator can take advantage of
On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 21:39 -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com wrote:
On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 17:53 -0400, Saxon, Will wrote:
I think there may be very good reason to use iSCSI, if you're limited
to gigabit but need to be able
On 08/13/10 09:02 PM, C. Bergström wrote:
Erast wrote:
On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't
get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they
On 08/14/10 09:36 AM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Tim Cook wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
Oracle will spend *more* money on OpenSolaris development than Sun did.
At least, as a Sun customer, that's the line they were trying to
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 07:38 -0700, Richard Jahnel wrote:
FWIW I'm making a significant bet that Nexenta plus Illumos will be the
future for the space in which I operate.
I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta
before Oracle's cunning plans became known.
is available, like some are still
using OpenSolaris 2009.06 instead of one of the development releases.
In another thread about a month ago Garrett D'Amore (from Nexenta and
working with the IllumOS project which Nexenta is a sponsor of)
wrote:
There is another piece I'll add: even if Oracle
Any code can become abandonware; where it effectively bitrots into
oblivion.
For either ZFS or BTRFS (or any other filesystem) to survive, there have
to be sufficiently skilled developers with an interest in developing and
maintaining it (whether the interest is commercial or recreational).
see, that's good, and is a realistic future scenario for ZFS, AFAICT:
there can be a branch that's safe to collaborate on, which cannot go
into Solaris 11 and cannot be taken proprietary by Nexenta, either.
In fact, we are in the process of creating a non-profit foundation for
Illumos
It can be as simple as impact on the cache. 64-bit programs tend to be
bigger, and so they have a worse effect on the i-cache.
Unless your program does something that can inherently benefit from
64-bit registers, or can take advantage of the richer instruction set
that is available to amd64
linking is probably going to be difficult.
- Garrett
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 17:07 -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
gd == Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com writes:
Joerg is correct that CDDL code can legally live right
alongside the GPLv2 kernel code and run in the same program
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 00:16 -0700, Alxen4 wrote:
Is there any way run start-up script before non-root pool is mounted ?
For example I'm trying to use ramdisk as ZIL device (ramdiskadm )
So I need to create ramdisk before actual pool is mounted otherwise it
complains that log device is
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 00:49 -0700, Alxen4 wrote:
Any argumentation why ?
Because a RAMDISK defeats the purpose of a ZIL, which is to provide a
fast *stable storage* for data being written. If you are using a
RAMDISK, you are not getting any non-volatility guarantees that the ZIL
is supposed to
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 01:20 -0700, Alxen4 wrote:
Thanks...Now I think I understand...
Let me summarize it andd let me know if I'm wrong.
Disabling ZIL converts all synchronous calls to asynchronous which makes ZSF
to report data acknowledgment before it actually was written to stable
All of this is entirely legal conjecture, by people who aren't lawyers,
for issues that have not been tested by court and are clearly subject to
interpretation. Since it no longer is relevant to the topic of the
list, can we please either take the discussion offline, or agree to just
let the
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 20:14 +0100, Daniel Taylor wrote:
On 19 Aug 2010, at 19:42, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
Out of interest, what language do you recommend?
Depends on the job -- I'm a huge fan of choosing the right tool for the
job. I just think C++ tries to be jack of all trades and winds up
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 09:23 +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
There is no common C++ ABI. So you get into compatibility concerns
between code built with different compilers (like Studio vs. g++).
Fail.
Which is why we have extern C. Just about any Solaris driver, library
or
We have ZFS version 28. Whether we ever get another open source update of ZFS
from *Oracle* is at this point doubtful. However, I will point out that there
are a lot of former Oracle engineers, including both inventors of ZFS and many
of the people who have worked on it over the years, who
Generally, ZFS does not use floating point.
And further, use of floating point in the kernel is exceptionally rare. The
kernel does not save floating point context automatically, which means that
code that uses floating point needs to take special care to make sure any
context from userland
We should get the reformatter(s) ported to illumos/solaris, if source is
available. Something to consider.
- Garrett
-Original Message-
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org on behalf of Erik Trimble
Sent: Wed 12/22/2010 10:36 PM
To: Christopher George
Cc:
]
Sent: Thu 12/23/2010 1:32 AM
To: Garrett D'Amore
Cc: Erik Trimble; Jerry Kemp; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] stupid ZFS question - floating point operations
On 22/12/2010 20:27, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
That said, some operations -- and cryptographic ones in particular
On 01/ 3/11 05:08 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
On 12/26/10 05:40 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com wrote:
There are more people outside of Oracle developing for ZFS than
inside Oracle.
On 01/ 4/11 11:48 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com
mailto:garr...@nexenta.com wrote:
On 01/ 4/11 09:15 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Garrett D'Amore
garr...@nexenta.com mailto:garr...@nexenta.com
On 01/ 6/11 05:28 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Khushil Dep [mailto:khushil@gmail.com]
I've deployed large SAN's on both SuperMicro 825/826/846 and Dell
R610/R710's and I've not found any issues so far. I always make a point of
installing Intel chipset NIC's on the DELL's and disabling
On 01/ 8/11 10:43 AM, Stephan Budach wrote:
Am 08.01.11 18:33, schrieb Edward Ned Harvey:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Garrett D'Amore
When you purchase NexentaStor from a top-tier Nexenta Hardware Partner,
you get
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
