[zfs-discuss] matching zpool versions to development builds

2011-08-08 Thread John Martin
Is there a list of zpool versions for development builds? I found: http://blogs.oracle.com/stw/entry/zfs_zpool_and_file_system where it says Solaris 11 Express is zpool version 31, but my system has BEs back to build 139 and I have not done a zpool upgrade since installing this system but it

Re: [zfs-discuss] BAD WD drives - defective by design?

2011-09-06 Thread John Martin
http://wdc.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/1397/~/difference-between-desktop-edition-and-raid-%28enterprise%29-edition-drives ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] bad seagate drive?

2011-09-12 Thread John Martin
On 09/12/11 10:33, Jens Elkner wrote: Hmmm, at least if S11x, ZFS mirror, ICH10 and cmdk (IDE) driver is involved, I'm 99.9% confident, that a while turns out to be some days or weeks, only - no matter what Platinium-Enterprise-HDDs you use ;-) On Solaris 11 Express with a dual drive mirror,

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs read-ahead and L2ARC

2012-01-08 Thread John Martin
On 01/08/12 09:30, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: In the case of your MP3 collection... Probably the only thing you can do is to write a script which will simply go read all the files you predict will be read soon. The key here is the prediction - There's no way ZFS or solaris, or any other OS in

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs read-ahead and L2ARC

2012-01-08 Thread John Martin
On 01/08/12 11:30, Jim Klimov wrote: However for smaller servers, such as home NASes which have about one user overall, pre-reading and caching files even for a single use might be an objective per se - just to let the hard-disks spin down. Say, if I sit down to watch a movie from my NAS, it is

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs read-ahead and L2ARC

2012-01-09 Thread John Martin
On 01/08/12 20:10, Jim Klimov wrote: Is it true or false that: ZFS might skip the cache and go to disks for streaming reads? I don't believe this was ever suggested. Instead, if data is not already in the file system cache and a large read is made from disk should the file system put this

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs read-ahead and L2ARC

2012-01-09 Thread John Martin
On 01/08/12 10:15, John Martin wrote: I believe Joerg Moellenkamp published a discussion several years ago on how L1ARC attempt to deal with the pollution of the cache by large streaming reads, but I don't have a bookmark handy (nor the knowledge of whether the behavior is still accurate

Re: [zfs-discuss] Data loss by memory corruption?

2012-01-16 Thread John Martin
On 01/16/12 11:08, David Magda wrote: The conclusions are hardly unreasonable: While the reliability mechanisms in ZFS are able to provide reasonable robustness against disk corruptions, memory corruptions still remain a serious problem to data integrity. I've heard the same thing said (use

Re: [zfs-discuss] What is your data error rate?

2012-01-24 Thread John Martin
On 01/24/12 17:06, Gregg Wonderly wrote: What I've noticed, is that when I have my drives in a situation of small airflow, and hence hotter operating temperatures, my disks will drop quite quickly. While I *believe* the same thing and thus have over provisioned airflow in my cases (for both

Re: [zfs-discuss] What is your data error rate?

2012-01-25 Thread John Martin
On 01/25/12 09:08, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: Assuming the failure rate of drives is not linear, but skewed toward higher failure rate after some period of time (say, 3 yrs) ... See section 3.1 of the Google study: http://research.google.com/archive/disk_failures.pdf although section 4.2

Re: [zfs-discuss] Advanced Format HDD's - are we there yet? (or - how to buy a drive that won't be teh sux0rs on zfs)

2012-05-29 Thread John Martin
On 05/28/12 08:48, Nathan Kroenert wrote: Looking to get some larger drives for one of my boxes. It runs exclusively ZFS and has been using Seagate 2TB units up until now (which are 512 byte sector). Anyone offer up suggestions of either 3 or preferably 4TB drives that actually work well with

Re: [zfs-discuss] Advanced Format HDD's - are we there yet? (or - how to buy a drive that won't be teh sux0rs on zfs)

2012-05-29 Thread John Martin
On 05/29/12 08:35, Nathan Kroenert wrote: Hi John, Actually, last time I tried the whole AF (4k) thing, it's performance was worse than woeful. But admittedly, that was a little while ago. The drives were the seagate green barracuda IIRC, and performance for just about everything was 20MB/s

Re: [zfs-discuss] Advanced Format HDD's - are we there yet? (or - how to buy a drive that won't be teh sux0rs on zfs)

2012-05-29 Thread John Martin
On 05/29/12 07:26, bofh wrote: ashift:9 is that standard? Depends on what the drive reports as physical sector size. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Migrating 512 byte block zfs root pool to 4k disks

2012-06-15 Thread John Martin
On 06/15/12 15:52, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Its important to identify your OS release to determine if booting from a 4k disk is supported. In addition, whether the drive is really 4096p or 512e/4096p. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list

Re: [zfs-discuss] Migrating 512 byte block zfs root pool to 4k disks

2012-06-16 Thread John Martin
On 06/16/12 12:23, Richard Elling wrote: On Jun 15, 2012, at 7:37 AM, Hung-Sheng Tsao Ph.D. wrote: by the way when you format start with cylinder 1 donot use 0 There is no requirement for skipping cylinder 0 for root on Solaris, and there never has been. Maybe not for core Solaris, but it

Re: [zfs-discuss] Interaction between ZFS intent log and mmap'd files

2012-07-04 Thread John Martin
On 07/04/12 16:47, Nico Williams wrote: I don't see that the munmap definition assures that anything is written to disk. The system is free to buffer the data in RAM as long as it likes without writing anything at all. Oddly enough the manpages at the Open Group don't make this clear. So I

Re: [zfs-discuss] New fast hash algorithm - is it needed?

2012-07-10 Thread John Martin
On 07/10/12 19:56, Sašo Kiselkov wrote: Hi guys, I'm contemplating implementing a new fast hash algorithm in Illumos' ZFS implementation to supplant the currently utilized sha256. On modern 64-bit CPUs SHA-256 is actually much slower than SHA-512 and indeed much slower than many of the SHA-3

Re: [zfs-discuss] Very poor small-block random write performance

2012-07-19 Thread John Martin
On 07/19/12 19:27, Jim Klimov wrote: However, if the test file was written in 128K blocks and then is rewritten with 64K blocks, then Bob's answer is probably valid - the block would have to be re-read once for the first rewrite of its half; it might be taken from cache for the second half's

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can the ZFS copies attribute substitute HW disk redundancy?

2012-07-30 Thread John Martin
On 07/29/12 14:52, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: My opinion is that complete hard drive failure and block-level media failure are two totally different things. That would depend on the recovery behavior of the drive for block-level media failure. A drive whose firmware does excessive (reports of up