[zfs-discuss] Simple RAID-Z question
Hey everybody, I'm thinking of moving my file server (at home) from Linux to Solaris, mostly due to ZFS and DTrace. One problem, though. I'll start out with a ZFS pool on 2x200GB disks + a 200GB slice/partition on a 250GB disk (with 50GB as system etc); that works, right? 400GB of storage and one disk can fail with no data loss, I suppose. If so: what happens when I in the future add a fourth disk to the pool, probably a 500-750GB one? How much capacity will I get from the pool, and what happens if any given disk (including the new, bigger one) fails? Thanks in advance, Thomas ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Simple RAID-Z question
> One problem, though. I'll start out with a ZFS pool on 2x200GB disks > + a 200GB slice/partition on a 250GB disk (with 50GB as system etc); > that works, right? 400GB of storage and one disk can fail with no > data loss, I suppose. Assuming raidz, yes. > If so: what happens when I in the future add a fourth disk to the > pool, probably a 500-750GB one? How much capacity will I get from the > pool, and what happens if any given disk (including the new, bigger > one) fails? A raidz/raidz2 will not expand further than the smallest disk in the set. So adding a 750 gb disk to an existing raidz/raidz2 pool with 200 gb drives, will not expand the set (though my understanding is that there is work planned or ongoing to add support for growing a raidz/raidz2 incrementally by adding drives). Currently, in order to get more storage you have to either upgrade all drives in the set, or stripe the pool across multiple sets (so eg, you could add 7x750 gb and have the pool striped over that and the 3x300 gb set). -- / Peter Schuller PGP userID: 0xE9758B7D or 'Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' Key retrieval: Send an E-Mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.scode.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Wish List
Since we're wishing things: Temporary pool imports, via a flag on zpool. Pools that are temporarily imported ignore the in-use flag of the pool. It should not be written either, whether it's set as in use or not. This would allow accessing the pool manually in a multiboot scenario, where it belongs to one system, but where the user needs occasional access to it from elsewhere (e.g. FreeBSD 7). The idea behind temporary imports is to prevent any problems that may occur if the user forgot to export it when booting back into the main system. Also, this would allow true read-only mode on pools, since truly nothing is getting written to disk, unlike currently, where the in-use flag is written. As side effect enabling ZFS on read-only media. -mg > Close Sync on file systems option (ie when the app calls close the file > is flushed, including mmap, no data loss of closed files on system > crash) Atomic/Locked operations across all pools e.g. snapshot all or > selected pools at the same time. > Allowance for offline files, eg. first part of a file can be on disk, > the last part can be on disk, the rest on tape/cd/dvd/blue-ray etc. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] remove snapshots
On 18/08/07, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Blake wrote:
> > Now I'm curious.
> >
> > I was recursively removing snapshots that had been generated recursively
> > with the '-r' option. I'm running snv65 - is this a recent feature?
>
> No; it was integrated in snv_43, and is in s10u3. See:
>
> PSARC 2006/388 snapshot -r
> 6373978 want to take lots of snapshots quickly ('zfs snapshot -r')
I think he was asking about recursive destroy, rather than create.
I know recursive rename went in at b63, because it saves me a lot of
work :)
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] remove snapshots
Dick Davies wrote:
> On 18/08/07, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Blake wrote:
>>> Now I'm curious.
>>>
>>> I was recursively removing snapshots that had been generated recursively
>>> with the '-r' option. I'm running snv65 - is this a recent feature?
>> No; it was integrated in snv_43, and is in s10u3. See:
>>
>> PSARC 2006/388 snapshot -r
>> 6373978 want to take lots of snapshots quickly ('zfs snapshot -r')
>
> I think he was asking about recursive destroy, rather than create.
> I know recursive rename went in at b63, because it saves me a lot of
> work :)
Recursive destroy was integrated as part of the above mentioned psarc case &
bug, in build 43.
Glad you're enjoying rename -r too!
--matt
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] remove snapshots
Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> Dick Davies wrote:
>> On 18/08/07, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Blake wrote:
Now I'm curious.
I was recursively removing snapshots that had been generated recursively
with the '-r' option. I'm running snv65 - is this a recent feature?
>>> No; it was integrated in snv_43, and is in s10u3. See:
>>>
>>> PSARC 2006/388 snapshot -r
>>> 6373978 want to take lots of snapshots quickly ('zfs snapshot -r')
>> I think he was asking about recursive destroy, rather than create.
>> I know recursive rename went in at b63, because it saves me a lot of
>> work :)
>
> Recursive destroy was integrated as part of the above mentioned psarc case &
> bug, in build 43.
Just to bo be crystal clear: I'm talking about recursive destroy of a
snapshot ("zfs destroy -r pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED]"), which destroys the
snapshots
created by "zfs snapshot -r".
Recursive destroy of a filesystem (destroying all filesystems & snapshots
beneath it) has been in ZFS since before it was integrated into Nevada.
--matt
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Will there be a GUI for ZFS ?
eFoot is in mouth! My mistake - confused the two tools. That's what I get for answering off the cuff. The rest still stands, as confirmed elsewhere. Craig In response to Boyd Adamson, who said: > "Craig Cory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The GUI is an implementation of the webmin tool. You must be running the >> server - started with > > Actually, I think webmin is a completely different tool. > Craig Cory Senior Instructor :: ExitCertified : Sun Certified System Administrator : Sun Certified Network Administrator : Sun Certified Security Administrator : Veritas Certified Instructor 8950 Cal Center Drive Bldg 1, Suite 110 Sacramento, California 95826 [e] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [p] 916.669.3970 [f] 916.669.3977 [w] WWW.EXITCERTIFIED.COM +-+ OTTAWA | SACRAMENTO | MONTREAL | LAS VEGAS | QUEBEC CITY | CALGARY SAN FRANCISCO | VANCOUVER | REGINA | WINNIPEG | TORONTO ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Best option for my home file server?
Hi there, I think I have managed to confuse myself so i am asking outright hoping for a straight answer. First, my situation. I have several disks of varying sizes I would like to run as redundant storage ina file server at home. Performance is not my number one priority, largest capacity possible while allowing for a single disk failure. Is there a soluton to my problem? My understanding is as follows, JBOD does not protect from a disk failure. Raidz can only be as big as your smallest disk. For example if I had a 320gig with a 250gig and 200gig I could only have 400gig of storage. I know it's not exactly an enterprise level question but it would help my understanding a lot. I just want to be sure that buying new disks of equal size is not my only option to have a proper raidz configuration. thanks. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Performance Tuning - ZFS, Oracle and T2000
Hi All, We are currently in the process of testing Solaris 10 with ZFS and Oracle and are running it on a T2000. When checking performance statistics on the T2000, we notice that only one thread of the CPU appears to be doing any of the processing. Leaving all other threads seemingly idle. Are there any tuning parameters that need to be set or changed when running Oracle on T2000 using ZFS? Can anyone suggest what I might look for? Any initial suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Damian Reed ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
