So it sounds like I need to recreate my zpool ... "Logical Block Size" = 512 "Physical Block Size" = 4096
So I should use the following command on my next zpool to help finder performance and make it compatible for 4k drives? zfs create -o normalization=formD atime=off murr ashift=12 (let me know if I have any errors in this) As for the slowness in a VM, Mac file sharing would affect it because Windows 8 accesses the drives with Fusion by mounting \\jamess-imac\Volumes\murr as the Z drive so it technically is a file share if that's what you mean. But it could also be because the slowness of not using a 4k compatible zpool is compounded with a virtual machine. (Could someone updated the getting started guide to have you create a 4k zpool by default?) Thanks for the advice on Songbird! I may try it if it can organize via masks and support custom ID3 fields. I saw it's discontinued though but it's still on SourceForge. I'm at work so can't give a better reply but I have a lot more to look into and read now =) - James On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:07 PM, 'Busty' via zfs-macos <zfs-macos@googlegroups.com> wrote: > James, > > I use my 15TB pool mainly for flac files too, so I thought I'd throw in > my two cents (even if some is not zfs related): > > regarding iTunes recognizing flac: There is a quicktime component that > will enable flac in quicktime, iirc it also works in itunes, at least > you can get it too. But it will not play gapless, there is an amount of > silence between songs. > > Another thing is called "TwistedFlac", which in a folder you can specify > shows all flac files as wave files. These can be imported into iTunes, > the downside is that the tags are not recognized. > > Just in case that helps with your library. I use songbird, which can > about anything you want, but is not as stable as iTunes. > > Regarding your files showing up very slow, I experience that when I > access my files on the pool from a remote machine which has to do with > AFP (Apple filesharing protocol), so I have set up a NFS share. But you > don'T writ eabout accessing the files from a a remote machine, so this > should not be your issue. > > I kinda went the way you did. I had no knowledge of zfs but really > wanted the features for data safety. That was roughly 3-4 years ago. As > I set up my pool (and my backup, by the way), I came across all kinds of > problems (drives vanishing, kernel panics, slow file browsing, scripts > to automate backups and scrubs, you name it) which had to be solved, so > I had a lot of reading and googling to do. I kinda was fooled by the > MacZFS tutorial into thinking that this will be completely easy like you > describe. > > These guys, in the front row Jason and Alex Blewitt and Bjoern helped me > a lot to get on the way (so thanks again guys) > > Sebastian > > > On 20.05.14 20:28, James Hoyt wrote: >> Hi Bjorn thanks for your reply and thanks for your help Jason in all >> this. I've actually been in the IT industry for 12 years, A+ >> certified, and currently pursuing my CCNA and MCSA so a technical >> setup didn't intimidate me. (granted servers are a new beast to me) I >> came across Mac ZFS while researching RAID options. As I'm getting new >> music in wav/flac daily from a number of sources, a manual backup >> system really wouldn't work for me as it's too hard to keep up. I >> tried once with a blu-ray writer and it was a nightmare.. plus I'm >> regularly categorizing music with MediaMonkey (why I have a virtual >> machine because it's Windows only... oh why won't iTunes support FLAC >> natively!) so all the tracks are updated now and then. So I thought an >> offsite backup that's updated every few months along with a four-drive >> RAID setup with one drive for redundancy would be all that I would >> need. >> >> MacZFS.org is well put together and the tutorials isn't intimidating >> at all. Run a few terminal commands? I can do that. The depth of ZFS >> wasn't really covered nor did it really state that more research is >> needed (like if I need 4k setup.. or whatever that is D: ) So it's >> rather frustrating to just find out I moved all my data off my >> individual 2/1.5 TB drives to find out I did it wrong when I was >> careful, very careful, to follow the Getting Started guide and FAQ >> precisely. >> >> Bleh D: >> >> Jason, I apologize for coming out rough. I felt like I was being >> treated like a lazy moron, which I'm not. I've researched a variety of >> RAID solutions quite a bit and thought I was all setup for ZFS and >> just had to change some configurations to speed it up. I'm sure you >> weren't born with this knowledge and needed the help of others to >> guide you in the right direction. I was googling things like "slow >> zpool ZFS" and other similar terms but just couldn't find anything >> concrete (because my problem isn't concrete). >> >> I tried searching if my drives are 4k with no luck. I saw an article >> back from 2010 stating hard drives were planning to all be 4k in >> 2011... this leads me to believe that they are 4k since I purchased >> them new last year. Crap D: Is there a for sure way I can see if they >> are 4k? Could this be my performance issue or is it just because my >> directories have large amounts of folders/files in them? >> >> Again, sorry if I came out rude. This is all new technology to me and >> I'm doing my best to become familiar with it. >> >> Thank you, >> >> James >> >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Daniel Becker <razzf...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> James, >>> >>> Perhaps the takeaway here is that MacZFS (and arguably ZFS in general) is >>> really not a great fit for the casual user. ZFS is very powerful once you >>> take the time to really get familiar with it, but it does require a fair >>> amount of research to get started, and it gives you lots of ways to shoot >>> yourself in the foot. And as you found out yourself, there are a fair number >>> of caveats and behavioral oddities when running ZFS on a Mac. If you want >>> something that "just works" without digging into the details and that gives >>> you behavior just as you would expect it from other file systems, it's >>> probably not for you (at least not for anything other than experimentation). >>> >>> I know that the MacZFS page likes to give a somewhat different impression, >>> but in my opinion encouraging non-technical users to install it is really >>> doing a disservice both to said users and to the community as a whole. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:59 AM, James Hoyt <djnati...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I did status as you can see from my original post.. I didn't know >>>> scrub and clean. I did my research only on MacZFS because I thought >>>> that's only where it mattered. I didn't trust info on other sites >>>> because I didn't think it was relevant to how Mac ZFS operated. >>>> >>>> Please show me where I could have found the scrub command on >>>> maczfs.org because it is not there. I see nothing about clean either. >>>> >>>> I'm openly stating I don't know it and it's not stated on the wiki or >>>> FAQ or getting started section on maczfs.org. There is no refusal >>>> going on. >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Jason Belec >>>> <jasonbe...@belecmartin.com> wrote: >>>>> Sorry you feel that way. We have had a lot of people in your situation. >>>>> You seem to have skipped over the basics. >>>>> >>>>> Zpool scub murr >>>>> >>>>> Zpool status murr >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This command is on every ZFS site. Your openly stating you don't know it >>>>> and refuse to look it up. I wish you the best. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jason >>>>> Sent from my iPhone 5S >>>>> >>>>>> On May 20, 2014, at 12:09 PM, James Hoyt <djnati...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> You have completely lost me at this point. You were rather >>>>>> condescending and not helpful. I was hoping for instructions on how to >>>>>> clean and scrub and saw none of that. At least point me to some proper >>>>>> links. I also don't know what a 4k drive is. >>>>>> >>>>>> I carefully followed and read ALL the instructions and FAQ and Getting >>>>>> Started guide on maczfs.org. Please don't speak to me like I didn't do >>>>>> my research or follow the proper instructions. >>>>>> >>>>>> - James >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Jason Belec >>>>>>> <jasonbe...@belecmartin.com> wrote: >>>>>>> OK, one thing, any indexing under that version of ZFS is going to kill >>>>>>> performance. Long standing issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No backups? Did you bump your noggin? With your current setup you have >>>>>>> improved your chances if your scrubbing regularly and if you only lose a >>>>>>> drive at anyone time. And adding backup will drastically increase your >>>>>>> chances. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not understanding ZFS is a BIG reason to stop and re-evaluate your >>>>>>> priorities. It's amazing tech IF used properly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For what it sounds like you want from ZFS you should use mirrors. You >>>>>>> can do 2 mirrors of 2 drives each stripped under ZFS. This will >>>>>>> increase the >>>>>>> safety of your data. Even that should have a back up drive you move key >>>>>>> files or better yet 'snapshots' onto. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BUT you are going to have to understand ZFS to have any hope of not >>>>>>> drowning in a pool of tears at some point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The new ZFS is under development but far more functional. Eliminating >>>>>>> many of the old version issues listed numerous times throughout the >>>>>>> forum. >>>>>>> Either way you should ALWAYS understand the tech you rely on. Period. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please start learning with the word 'scrub' then the word 'snapshot' >>>>>>> and how to swap a failed drive and do it all. Before committing your >>>>>>> valuable data. Drives fail. Repeat. Drives fail. Data must be restored >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> some point. ZFS is magical if you have planned ahead. I have recovered >>>>>>> data >>>>>>> assumed totally lost, YMMV. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for those drives are they 4k? If so you formatted your pool >>>>>>> incorrectly. I don't have any of those so I don't have notes. Should be >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> simple Google search to find out. And the wiki has the instructions on >>>>>>> 4k >>>>>>> drive setup. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Doing things right is what the wiki tries to help people with. The >>>>>>> forum allows you to search for other peoples heartbreak to help prevent >>>>>>> your >>>>>>> own. The wizards tracking this stuff have done a wonderful job. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hope this gets you rolling. I'd still check your cables as well. >>>>>>> Normally I attach a drive, build a pool, test a lot, destroy pool. Add >>>>>>> another drive. Repeat. Better safe than sorry. Manufacturers are not >>>>>>> safe >>>>>>> guarding your data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone 5S >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 20, 2014, at 9:37 AM, James Hoyt <djnati...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the detailed reply. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The slow performance is only when I'm using the RAID array so I >>>>>>>> assume >>>>>>>> without it connected means I can't use it means there is no slow >>>>>>>> performance. I would love instructions on how to scrub/clean the >>>>>>>> pool. >>>>>>>> Does it do a data wipe? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was trying to think of a good backup solution. I have over 3 TBs of >>>>>>>> music in FLAC (lots of which I've paid for) and was hoping RAIDZ >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> take away the need for backups. I was thinking of buying a 4 TB drive >>>>>>>> and moving all my data on that and storing the drive offsite or >>>>>>>> something (in case of burglary, fires, etc). Having a single drive >>>>>>>> fail safe seems secure enough for me so I don't think incremental >>>>>>>> backups are needed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As for running the latest beta ZFS, I didn't because the FAQ warned >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> not to. What are the differences? Would I have to format and rebuild >>>>>>>> the array? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The drives I have are four 3 TB Hitachi HDS723030BLE640. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I started navigating around my computer again, and the slowdown seems >>>>>>>> to be when going into folders with over 1000 files (for anything more >>>>>>>> it will take 1-3 minutes to just list the files in the directory). >>>>>>>> Also when I'm saving images from Firefox (no virtual machine running) >>>>>>>> it takes awhile to navigate the folder structure and sometimes not >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> the folders show, but they do in the Finder. So I wonder if this is >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> issue with programs not getting along with ZFS but the finder being >>>>>>>> fine with it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Other things to note, I did disable Spotlight on the drive to make >>>>>>>> sure that isn't running, but I do have QuickSilver. Originally, I had >>>>>>>> QuickSilver indexing the drive, but the computer was practically >>>>>>>> unusable when it did that so I disabled that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I look forward to any advice you guys may have. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Jason Belec >>>>>>>>> <jasonbe...@belecmartin.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> OK, doesn't look like RAM, processor etc., are the issue.... Let's >>>>>>>>> work with that in mind for now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When the pool and the associated drives are not connected, is the >>>>>>>>> computer back to your expectation of normal? If so, you have one or >>>>>>>>> more bad >>>>>>>>> cables, one or more bad drives, or a bit of both, perhaps a bad or >>>>>>>>> not quite >>>>>>>>> capable power supply (solves 90% of all issues I come across). Maybe >>>>>>>>> even an >>>>>>>>> issue with the motherboard. Simplest thing, have you run a scrub on >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> pool? Clean? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The type of drives you have is not an issue, the make and known >>>>>>>>> issues with said drives might be, but you didn't provide that info. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Using a raidcard and macJournaled terms, thrown out will not help >>>>>>>>> you, your either ZFS or not. That said, you will not get the same >>>>>>>>> speed from >>>>>>>>> ZFS as from other raid setups, but you will get peace of mind on data >>>>>>>>> integrity. I do hope you are also backing up data from the pool as >>>>>>>>> well or >>>>>>>>> eventually you will be in tears like so many others. A little forum >>>>>>>>> searching under old and new versions of mac zfs will be helpful. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since your getting started, once this is resolved it might be better >>>>>>>>> to build/run this under the latest (yes its in development) Mac ZFS >>>>>>>>> rather >>>>>>>>> than the old tired version. It is quite a bit different, modern and >>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>> many things a lot easier. (Insert legal disclaimer here) ;) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Interesting aside: >>>>>>>>> Dave mentioned an interesting point about wearing out SSDs, and I >>>>>>>>> must admit I've had two such occurrences but only with a hackintosh >>>>>>>>> and only >>>>>>>>> with less than stellar drives. Seems that here around the mad science >>>>>>>>> lab >>>>>>>>> Intel SSDs are the most reliable long term. I have two of their >>>>>>>>> originals >>>>>>>>> still outlasting several other brands. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Jason Belec >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On May 19, 2014, at 10:05 AM, James Hoyt <djnati...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all the replies guys =D >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry for lack of information. I'm running a Hackintosh with a 256 >>>>>>>>>> GB >>>>>>>>>> SSD and I sometimes run Windows 8.1 in a virtual machine via VmWare >>>>>>>>>> Fusion. The virtual image file is also located on the SSD. The only >>>>>>>>>> files I have on my zpool are data files. I don't run an OS or VM >>>>>>>>>> image >>>>>>>>>> from it. I have 12 GBs of RAM and a four core i5 processor. On the >>>>>>>>>> VM, >>>>>>>>>> I dedicate 6 GBs of RAM and 2 cores to it. It should be noted that >>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>> experience the slow down even when vmware is off it's just the >>>>>>>>>> drives >>>>>>>>>> act the slowest when the VM is running. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As for how I created the zpool, I followed the Getting Started >>>>>>>>>> guide with >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> zpool create murr raidz disk3s2 disk1s2 disk2s2 disk4s2 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please help... I really hope I don't have to recreate it, but it's >>>>>>>>>> looking that way. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Would it be better if I bought a RAID card and use Mac OS >>>>>>>>>> Journaled? >>>>>>>>>> Cost is an issue... the other issue is these are regular desktop >>>>>>>>>> 7200 >>>>>>>>>> RPM drives.. not NAS drives. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Jason Belec >>>>>>>>>>> <jasonbe...@belecmartin.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Dave has posted some good info. Reminds me why I prefer >>>>>>>>>>> Virtualbox. ;) We do seem to need more detail though to really help >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> original OP. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone 5S >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On May 19, 2014, at 4:00 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <d...@jsonified.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> From: James Hoyt djnati...@gmail.com(mailto:djnati...@gmail.com) >>>>>>>>>>>> Reply: zfs-macos@googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>>> zfs-macos@googlegroups.com(mailto:zfs-macos@googlegroups.com) >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: 19. Mai 2014 at 02:27:36 >>>>>>>>>>>> To: zfs-macos@googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>>> zfs-macos@googlegroups.com(mailto:zfs-macos@googlegroups.com) >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [zfs-macos] RAIDZ1 running slow =( >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So I setup a MacZFS RaidZ rather easily and was happy with >>>>>>>>>>>>> myself. I had four 3 TB internal SATA drives in a zpool giving me >>>>>>>>>>>>> around 9 >>>>>>>>>>>>> TB of space. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jamess-imac:~ sangie$ zpool status murr >>>>>>>>>>>>> pool: murr >>>>>>>>>>>>> state: ONLINE >>>>>>>>>>>>> scrub: none requested >>>>>>>>>>>>> config: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM >>>>>>>>>>>>> murr ONLINE 0 0 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>> raidz1 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>> disk3s2 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>> disk1s2 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>> disk2s2 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>> disk4s2 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> errors: No known data errors >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So I Filled it up with about 5 GBs of data, mainly images and >>>>>>>>>>>>> FLAC/music files and everything just drags on it. It takes a long >>>>>>>>>>>>> time for >>>>>>>>>>>>> files to be listed in finder and when I try to save an image from >>>>>>>>>>>>> Firefox, >>>>>>>>>>>>> it will just grind and grind while I try to navigate to a folder. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have >>>>>>>>>>>>> vmware Fusion setup on my SSD (my main Mac drive) and doing >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything on my >>>>>>>>>>>>> zpool from Windows (like using MediaMonkey to organize FLAC files >>>>>>>>>>>>> on it) >>>>>>>>>>>>> uses up 100% of the CPU, freezing up my computer until the moves >>>>>>>>>>>>> are done, >>>>>>>>>>>>> even when moving around 30 files. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It’s not clear from this what your actual physical / virtual >>>>>>>>>>>> setup is. Are you booting to OSX, and running Windows in a VM? Is >>>>>>>>>>>> the entire >>>>>>>>>>>> VM then living on the raidz pool? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is my zpool okay? What's going on? Is this type of slowness >>>>>>>>>>>>> normal or do I have a bad drive? How will MacZFS report to me if >>>>>>>>>>>>> a drive in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the array goes bad? I installed SMARTReporter Lite and it shows >>>>>>>>>>>>> all drives >>>>>>>>>>>>> as green. If I have some drives on SATA II and others on SATA III >>>>>>>>>>>>> would that >>>>>>>>>>>>> affect anything? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want me to run any tests on it, I will do so gladly. Just >>>>>>>>>>>>> let me know. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve seen precisely this sort of behaviour with vmware fusion >>>>>>>>>>>> when: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. my SSD was getting worn down (really, I trashed it in 1 year, >>>>>>>>>>>> it was the default apple one coming with early 2011 MBP) >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. the host OS & VM doesn’t have sufficient memory to run >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly without swapping >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. the additional memory within the VM is pulled from a disk swap >>>>>>>>>>>> file, which is by default in the same disk location as the VM >>>>>>>>>>>> itself >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anything less than 8GB of RAM is likely to be tight, VMs will of >>>>>>>>>>>> course make this more complicated. Some notes on >>>>>>>>>>>> http://artykul8.com/2012/06/vmware-performance-enhancing/ may help. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I found that my SSDs were being worn out with constant running of >>>>>>>>>>>> VMs; I use them heavily in my work. The solution I found was to >>>>>>>>>>>> get max RAM >>>>>>>>>>>> in my laptop + imac (16 vs 32 respectively), make a zfs based >>>>>>>>>>>> ramdisk with >>>>>>>>>>>> lz4 compression, and copy the entire VM into the ramdisk before >>>>>>>>>>>> running it. >>>>>>>>>>>> The copy phase only takes a few seconds from SSD, and it gives me >>>>>>>>>>>> a very >>>>>>>>>>>> nice way to “roll back” to the previous image when required. I can >>>>>>>>>>>> comfortably run Windows in a 20GiB ramdisk that fits inside a >>>>>>>>>>>> 10GiB zpool >>>>>>>>>>>> with compression, even on the 16GiB laptop, and allocating 2GiB of >>>>>>>>>>>> ram for >>>>>>>>>>>> the VM itself (10 + 2 for virtualisation & leave 4 for all of OSX >>>>>>>>>>>> stuff). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here’s the zsh functions I use for this. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> # create a 1GiB ramdisk >>>>>>>>>>>> ramdisk-1g () { >>>>>>>>>>>> ramdisk-create 2097152 >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> # the generic function for the specific one above >>>>>>>>>>>> ramdisk-create () { >>>>>>>>>>>> diskutil eject /Volumes/ramdisk > /dev/null 2>&1 >>>>>>>>>>>> diskutil erasevolume HFS+ 'ramdisk' `hdiutil attach -nomount >>>>>>>>>>>> ram://$1` >>>>>>>>>>>> cd /ramdisk >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> # make a zpool backed ramdisk instead of the HFS+ ones above. >>>>>>>>>>>> Main advantage is compression. I get at least 2x more “disk” for >>>>>>>>>>>> RAM with >>>>>>>>>>>> this approach. >>>>>>>>>>>> zdisk () { >>>>>>>>>>>> sudo zpool create -O compression=lz4 -fm /zram zram `hdiutil >>>>>>>>>>>> attach -nomount ram://20971520` >>>>>>>>>>>> sudo chown -R $USER /zram >>>>>>>>>>>> cd /zram >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> # self explanatory >>>>>>>>>>>> zdisk-destroy () { >>>>>>>>>>>> sudo zpool export -f zram >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> — >>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Cottlehuber >>>>>>>>>>>> d...@jsonified.com >>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my Couch >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups "zfs-macos" group. >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>>>> send an email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>>>>>>> the Google Groups "zfs-macos" group. >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/zfs-macos/78gD-0OzKMQ/unsubscribe. >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email >>>>>>>>>>> to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>>>> Groups "zfs-macos" group. >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>>>> send an email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>>>>> the Google Groups "zfs-macos" group. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/zfs-macos/78gD-0OzKMQ/unsubscribe. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>>>>> zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>>> Groups "zfs-macos" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>>> send an email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>>>>> Google Groups "zfs-macos" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/zfs-macos/78gD-0OzKMQ/unsubscribe. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>>> zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "zfs-macos" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>>>> an email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>>> Google Groups "zfs-macos" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/zfs-macos/78gD-0OzKMQ/unsubscribe. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>> zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>>> "zfs-macos" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>>> email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "zfs-macos" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/zfs-macos/78gD-0OzKMQ/unsubscribe. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Bjoern Kahl <googlelo...@bjoern-kahl.de> >> wrote: >> >> Hi James, >> >> pretty much all relevant things have already been said, so I can make >> this short (well, didn't worked out). >> >> MacZFS (stable version) comes with man pages. A simple "man zpool" >> should give you access to all the ZFS pool maintenance commands. >> >> I virtually fell off my chair when I read your two statements >> "I thought I need not backups" and "what is scrub, Does it do a data >> wipe?" >> >> As Jason said, ZFS is a wonderful piece of technology, but it is not >> that kind of software one should use by just following some >> setp-by-step guides. It will sooner or later bite you. We tried to >> make it save and we tried to make it Mac friendly, but ZFS is >> ultimately designed for big data centers and no interface magic can >> really hide that fact. >> >> >> Nevertheless, to answer your questions: >> >> >> Scrub reads all data on a pool and verifies the checksums ZFS >> maintains for each chunk of data stored in a pool. Jason gave you >> the commands in his other post. >> >> If (big if) you have redundancy in your pool, that is a mirror or a >> raidz, then and only then it can repair damaged data in the background. >> >> It does so, by either getting a good copy from the other side(s) of >> the mirror, or by combinatorial calculations from the raidz parity >> stripes. >> >> In a raidzX you can loose X drives without immediate data loss, in a >> N-way mirror you can loose (N-1) drives without immediate data loss. >> >> Note! The keyword here is *immediate* data loss. If you buy 3 drives >> in a batch, and put these drives in a pool (mirror or raidz), then >> these drives will experience similar workload under similar condition, >> which significantly increases the likelihood to fail around the same >> time. >> >> Which means in a raidz1, you have a significant chance, that a second >> drive will fail while you are in the process of replacing a first >> failed drive. The moment a second drive fails, your data is gone. >> >> That is why you need backups. >> >> I have personally seen this happen more than once, and switched to >> always pairing drives from different manufactures and suppliers into >> mirror pairs. I say "and suppliers" to not have both drives >> experience the same shuffles and drops to the ground while in >> transportation. >> >> And you need regular(!) scrubs, to find out that a drive is getting >> weak before it fails completely, so you can replace it in time. >> >> And one more word on replacing drives: >> >> Once you have a drive failure, chances are you are in panic mode or at >> least in a hurry to fix things, which means prone to make mistakes. >> We are all just humans and do make mistakes. So you should exercise a >> drive replacement in advance. Replacing a random drive on a redundant >> pool using "zpool replace pool drive1 drive2" is supposed to be a safe >> operation, so you can simply try it out. The tricky part is how to >> hookup the drives and identify the right drive, not the actual >> replacement. >> >> Using "zpool replace" instead of the sometimes suggested "zpool >> attach" / "zpool detach" saves you from the all to common mistake to >> say "zpool add" instead of "zpool attach", a mistake that would screw >> up your pool layout and that can only be fixed by destroying and >> recreating the pool. >> >> >> Regarding the slowness: >> >> Using 4k drives in a pool configure for 512b drives (the standard type >> since hard drives were invented) will kill performance. >> >> Using 512b drives in a pool configured for 4k drives does no harm, >> except wasting a bit of space if you have many small files. >> >> So I suggest to destroy and recreate the pool if your drives are 4k >> (also called "enhanced format"). To configure a pool for 4k, you add >> "-o ashift=12" the the "zpool create" command. "zpool get all" should >> tell you the current ashift value, which is 9 for 512b and 12 for 4k >> >> :-) Exercise for the reader: Which ashift value to use for old style >> 16k flash memory? (Not that it would last long, but that's not the >> point here.) >> >> >> Regarding slow, long directories: >> >> Another issue our colleagues working on the new MacZFS find out: >> The Mac OSX kernel has a problem with caching really long directories, >> because it can run out of some internal file resources (the famous >> vnodes). This hits ZFS especially hard due to the way it handles its >> own short time locking and caching. >> >> >> Best regards >> >> Björn >> >> >> Am 20.05.14 18:09, schrieb James Hoyt: >>>>> You have completely lost me at this point. You were rather >>>>> condescending and not helpful. I was hoping for instructions on how >>>>> to clean and scrub and saw none of that. At least point me to some >>>>> proper links. I also don't know what a 4k drive is. >>>>> >>>>> I carefully followed and read ALL the instructions and FAQ and >>>>> Getting Started guide on maczfs.org. Please don't speak to me like >>>>> I didn't do my research or follow the proper instructions. >>>>> >>>>> - James >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Jason Belec >>>>> <jasonbe...@belecmartin.com> wrote: >>>>>> OK, one thing, any indexing under that version of ZFS is going to >>>>>> kill performance. Long standing issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> No backups? Did you bump your noggin? With your current setup you >>>>>> have improved your chances if your scrubbing regularly and if you >>>>>> only lose a drive at anyone time. And adding backup will >>>>>> drastically increase your chances. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not understanding ZFS is a BIG reason to stop and re-evaluate >>>>>> your priorities. It's amazing tech IF used properly. >>>>>> >>>>>> For what it sounds like you want from ZFS you should use mirrors. >>>>>> You can do 2 mirrors of 2 drives each stripped under ZFS. This >>>>>> will increase the safety of your data. Even that should have a >>>>>> back up drive you move key files or better yet 'snapshots' onto. >>>>>> >>>>>> BUT you are going to have to understand ZFS to have any hope of >>>>>> not drowning in a pool of tears at some point. >>>>>> >>>>>> The new ZFS is under development but far more functional. >>>>>> Eliminating many of the old version issues listed numerous times >>>>>> throughout the forum. Either way you should ALWAYS understand the >>>>>> tech you rely on. Period. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please start learning with the word 'scrub' then the word >>>>>> 'snapshot' and how to swap a failed drive and do it all. Before >>>>>> committing your valuable data. Drives fail. Repeat. Drives fail. >>>>>> Data must be restored at some point. ZFS is magical if you have >>>>>> planned ahead. I have recovered data assumed totally lost, YMMV. >>>>>> >>>>>> As for those drives are they 4k? If so you formatted your pool >>>>>> incorrectly. I don't have any of those so I don't have notes. >>>>>> Should be a simple Google search to find out. And the wiki has >>>>>> the instructions on 4k drive setup. >>>>>> >>>>>> Doing things right is what the wiki tries to help people with. >>>>>> The forum allows you to search for other peoples heartbreak to >>>>>> help prevent your own. The wizards tracking this stuff have done >>>>>> a wonderful job. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hope this gets you rolling. I'd still check your cables as well. >>>>>> Normally I attach a drive, build a pool, test a lot, destroy >>>>>> pool. Add another drive. Repeat. Better safe than sorry. >>>>>> Manufacturers are not safe guarding your data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jason Sent from my iPhone 5S >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 20, 2014, at 9:37 AM, James Hoyt <djnati...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the detailed reply. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The slow performance is only when I'm using the RAID array so I >>>>>>> assume without it connected means I can't use it means there is >>>>>>> no slow performance. I would love instructions on how to >>>>>>> scrub/clean the pool. Does it do a data wipe? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was trying to think of a good backup solution. I have over 3 >>>>>>> TBs of music in FLAC (lots of which I've paid for) and was >>>>>>> hoping RAIDZ would take away the need for backups. I was >>>>>>> thinking of buying a 4 TB drive and moving all my data on that >>>>>>> and storing the drive offsite or something (in case of >>>>>>> burglary, fires, etc). Having a single drive fail safe seems >>>>>>> secure enough for me so I don't think incremental backups are >>>>>>> needed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for running the latest beta ZFS, I didn't because the FAQ >>>>>>> warned me not to. What are the differences? Would I have to >>>>>>> format and rebuild the array? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The drives I have are four 3 TB Hitachi HDS723030BLE640. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I started navigating around my computer again, and the slowdown >>>>>>> seems to be when going into folders with over 1000 files (for >>>>>>> anything more it will take 1-3 minutes to just list the files >>>>>>> in the directory). Also when I'm saving images from Firefox (no >>>>>>> virtual machine running) it takes awhile to navigate the folder >>>>>>> structure and sometimes not all the folders show, but they do >>>>>>> in the Finder. So I wonder if this is an issue with programs >>>>>>> not getting along with ZFS but the finder being fine with it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other things to note, I did disable Spotlight on the drive to >>>>>>> make sure that isn't running, but I do have QuickSilver. >>>>>>> Originally, I had QuickSilver indexing the drive, but the >>>>>>> computer was practically unusable when it did that so I >>>>>>> disabled that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I look forward to any advice you guys may have. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> James >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Jason Belec >>>>>>>> <jasonbe...@belecmartin.com> wrote: OK, doesn't look like >>>>>>>> RAM, processor etc., are the issue.... Let's work with that >>>>>>>> in mind for now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When the pool and the associated drives are not connected, is >>>>>>>> the computer back to your expectation of normal? If so, you >>>>>>>> have one or more bad cables, one or more bad drives, or a bit >>>>>>>> of both, perhaps a bad or not quite capable power supply >>>>>>>> (solves 90% of all issues I come across). Maybe even an issue >>>>>>>> with the motherboard. Simplest thing, have you run a scrub on >>>>>>>> this pool? Clean? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The type of drives you have is not an issue, the make and >>>>>>>> known issues with said drives might be, but you didn't >>>>>>>> provide that info. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Using a raidcard and macJournaled terms, thrown out will not >>>>>>>> help you, your either ZFS or not. That said, you will not get >>>>>>>> the same speed from ZFS as from other raid setups, but you >>>>>>>> will get peace of mind on data integrity. I do hope you are >>>>>>>> also backing up data from the pool as well or eventually you >>>>>>>> will be in tears like so many others. A little forum >>>>>>>> searching under old and new versions of mac zfs will be >>>>>>>> helpful. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since your getting started, once this is resolved it might be >>>>>>>> better to build/run this under the latest (yes its in >>>>>>>> development) Mac ZFS rather than the old tired version. It is >>>>>>>> quite a bit different, modern and makes many things a lot >>>>>>>> easier. (Insert legal disclaimer here) ;) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Interesting aside: Dave mentioned an interesting point about >>>>>>>> wearing out SSDs, and I must admit I've had two such >>>>>>>> occurrences but only with a hackintosh and only with less >>>>>>>> than stellar drives. Seems that here around the mad science >>>>>>>> lab Intel SSDs are the most reliable long term. I have two of >>>>>>>> their originals still outlasting several other brands. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Jason Belec Sent from my iPad >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 19, 2014, at 10:05 AM, James Hoyt >>>>>>>>> <djnati...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for all the replies guys =D >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sorry for lack of information. I'm running a Hackintosh >>>>>>>>> with a 256 GB SSD and I sometimes run Windows 8.1 in a >>>>>>>>> virtual machine via VmWare Fusion. The virtual image file >>>>>>>>> is also located on the SSD. The only files I have on my >>>>>>>>> zpool are data files. I don't run an OS or VM image from >>>>>>>>> it. I have 12 GBs of RAM and a four core i5 processor. On >>>>>>>>> the VM, I dedicate 6 GBs of RAM and 2 cores to it. It >>>>>>>>> should be noted that I experience the slow down even when >>>>>>>>> vmware is off it's just the drives act the slowest when the >>>>>>>>> VM is running. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As for how I created the zpool, I followed the Getting >>>>>>>>> Started guide with >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> zpool create murr raidz disk3s2 disk1s2 disk2s2 disk4s2 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please help... I really hope I don't have to recreate it, >>>>>>>>> but it's looking that way. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would it be better if I bought a RAID card and use Mac OS >>>>>>>>> Journaled? Cost is an issue... the other issue is these are >>>>>>>>> regular desktop 7200 RPM drives.. not NAS drives. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> James >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Jason Belec >>>>>>>>>> <jasonbe...@belecmartin.com> wrote: Dave has posted some >>>>>>>>>> good info. Reminds me why I prefer Virtualbox. ;) We do >>>>>>>>>> seem to need more detail though to really help the >>>>>>>>>> original OP. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jason Sent from my iPhone 5S >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 19, 2014, at 4:00 AM, Dave Cottlehuber >>>>>>>>>>> <d...@jsonified.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> From: James Hoyt >>>>>>>>>>> djnati...@gmail.com(mailto:djnati...@gmail.com) Reply: >>>>>>>>>>> zfs-macos@googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>> zfs-macos@googlegroups.com(mailto:zfs-macos@googlegroups.com) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Date: 19. Mai 2014 at 02:27:36 >>>>>>>>>>> To: zfs-macos@googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>> zfs-macos@googlegroups.com(mailto:zfs-macos@googlegroups.com) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> Subject: [zfs-macos] RAIDZ1 running slow =( >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So I setup a MacZFS RaidZ rather easily and was happy >>>>>>>>>>>> with myself. I had four 3 TB internal SATA drives in >>>>>>>>>>>> a zpool giving me around 9 TB of space. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jamess-imac:~ sangie$ zpool status murr pool: murr >>>>>>>>>>>> state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM murr ONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1 >>>>>>>>>>>> ONLINE 0 0 0 disk3s2 ONLINE 0 0 0 disk1s2 ONLINE 0 0 >>>>>>>>>>>> 0 disk2s2 ONLINE 0 0 0 disk4s2 ONLINE 0 0 0 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> errors: No known data errors >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So I Filled it up with about 5 GBs of data, mainly >>>>>>>>>>>> images and FLAC/music files and everything just drags >>>>>>>>>>>> on it. It takes a long time for files to be listed in >>>>>>>>>>>> finder and when I try to save an image from Firefox, >>>>>>>>>>>> it will just grind and grind while I try to navigate >>>>>>>>>>>> to a folder. I have vmware Fusion setup on my SSD (my >>>>>>>>>>>> main Mac drive) and doing anything on my zpool from >>>>>>>>>>>> Windows (like using MediaMonkey to organize FLAC >>>>>>>>>>>> files on it) uses up 100% of the CPU, freezing up my >>>>>>>>>>>> computer until the moves are done, even when moving >>>>>>>>>>>> around 30 files. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It’s not clear from this what your actual physical / >>>>>>>>>>> virtual setup is. Are you booting to OSX, and running >>>>>>>>>>> Windows in a VM? Is the entire VM then living on the >>>>>>>>>>> raidz pool? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is my zpool okay? What's going on? Is this type of >>>>>>>>>>>> slowness normal or do I have a bad drive? How will >>>>>>>>>>>> MacZFS report to me if a drive in the array goes bad? >>>>>>>>>>>> I installed SMARTReporter Lite and it shows all >>>>>>>>>>>> drives as green. If I have some drives on SATA II and >>>>>>>>>>>> others on SATA III would that affect anything? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you want me to run any tests on it, I will do so >>>>>>>>>>>> gladly. Just let me know. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I’ve seen precisely this sort of behaviour with vmware >>>>>>>>>>> fusion when: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. my SSD was getting worn down (really, I trashed it >>>>>>>>>>> in 1 year, it was the default apple one coming with >>>>>>>>>>> early 2011 MBP) 2. the host OS & VM doesn’t have >>>>>>>>>>> sufficient memory to run correctly without swapping 3. >>>>>>>>>>> the additional memory within the VM is pulled from a >>>>>>>>>>> disk swap file, which is by default in the same disk >>>>>>>>>>> location as the VM itself >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anything less than 8GB of RAM is likely to be tight, >>>>>>>>>>> VMs will of course make this more complicated. Some >>>>>>>>>>> notes on >>>>>>>>>>> http://artykul8.com/2012/06/vmware-performance-enhancing/ >>>>>>>>>>> may help. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I found that my SSDs were being worn out with constant >>>>>>>>>>> running of VMs; I use them heavily in my work. The >>>>>>>>>>> solution I found was to get max RAM in my laptop + imac >>>>>>>>>>> (16 vs 32 respectively), make a zfs based ramdisk with >>>>>>>>>>> lz4 compression, and copy the entire VM into the >>>>>>>>>>> ramdisk before running it. The copy phase only takes a >>>>>>>>>>> few seconds from SSD, and it gives me a very nice way >>>>>>>>>>> to “roll back” to the previous image when required. I >>>>>>>>>>> can comfortably run Windows in a 20GiB ramdisk that >>>>>>>>>>> fits inside a 10GiB zpool with compression, even on the >>>>>>>>>>> 16GiB laptop, and allocating 2GiB of ram for the VM >>>>>>>>>>> itself (10 + 2 for virtualisation & leave 4 for all of >>>>>>>>>>> OSX stuff). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Here’s the zsh functions I use for this. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> # create a 1GiB ramdisk ramdisk-1g () { ramdisk-create >>>>>>>>>>> 2097152 } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> # the generic function for the specific one above >>>>>>>>>>> ramdisk-create () { diskutil eject /Volumes/ramdisk > >>>>>>>>>>> /dev/null 2>&1 diskutil erasevolume HFS+ 'ramdisk' >>>>>>>>>>> `hdiutil attach -nomount ram://$1` cd /ramdisk } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> # make a zpool backed ramdisk instead of the HFS+ ones >>>>>>>>>>> above. Main advantage is compression. I get at least 2x >>>>>>>>>>> more “disk” for RAM with this approach. zdisk () { sudo >>>>>>>>>>> zpool create -O compression=lz4 -fm /zram zram `hdiutil >>>>>>>>>>> attach -nomount ram://20971520` sudo chown -R $USER >>>>>>>>>>> /zram cd /zram } >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> # self explanatory zdisk-destroy () { sudo zpool export >>>>>>>>>>> -f zram } >>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "zfs-macos" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/zfs-macos/78gD-0OzKMQ/unsubscribe. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google > Groups "zfs-macos" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/zfs-macos/78gD-0OzKMQ/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "zfs-macos" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to zfs-macos+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
