On Jul 9, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
I'll call your bluff. Is a zpool create any different for backup
than the original creation? Neither ufsdump nor tar-like programs
do a mkfs or tunefs. In those cases, the sys admin still has to
create the file system using whatever volume ma
> Something like a Sun Ultra-20/X2100? These use a
> fairly generic Opteron-based
> motherboard with the familiar all-in-one I/O chipset.
> The product differentiation
> omes in the form factor, service processor, high
> quality power supplies,
> expandability, etc.
Yes, or the X4100. I believe
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
So I'm looking to build a home disk server (with some database and web activity,
and email) using ZFS and hence Solaris, and I'm finding it hard to locate
hardware that's known to work.
Something like a Sun Ultra-20/X2100? These use a fairly generic Opteron-based
moth
Dale Ghent wrote:
ZFS we all know is just more than a dumb fs like UFS is. As mentioned,
it has metadata in the form of volume options and whatnot. So, sure, I
can still use my Legato/NetBackup/Amanda and friends to back that data
up... but if the worst were to happen and I find myself having t
> > So the question becomes, what are the tradeoffs
> > between running a two-way
> > mirror vs. running RAID-Z on two disks?
>
> A two-way mirror would be better -- no parity
> generation, and you have
> the ability to attach/detach for more or less
> replication. (We could
> optimize the RAID-Z
> "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
>> tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
> ...
>> # mt -f /dev/rmt/0cbn status
>> HP DAT-72 tape drive:
>>sense key(0x0)= No Additional Sen
Thanks to Constantin Gonzalez and Eric Schrock for answering my initial
report.
- Truncating files to free up some space had worked in the past but not
this time.
From my experiment it seems to be possible to fill up a filesystem
beyond that, for even truncating was met by "No space left on
> So the question becomes, what are the tradeoffs between running a two-way
> mirror vs. running RAID-Z on two disks?
A two-way mirror would be better -- no parity generation, and you have
the ability to attach/detach for more or less replication. (We could
optimize the RAID-Z code for the two-di
One of the obvious big differences between RAID-Z and RAID-5 is that Z can be
run on just two disks. I do note it suggests you really want three, but I've
run it on two (slices rather than whole disks, in a small test environment) and
it works and recovers from removal or severe damage to eithe
So I'm looking to build a home disk server (with some database and web
activity, and email) using ZFS and hence Solaris, and I'm finding it hard to
locate hardware that's known to work.
I need a tower server, and something with office-level rather than lab-level
noise output. I need an absolut
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Justin Stringfellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why aren't you using amanda or something else that uses
tar as the means by which you do a backup?
Using something like tar to take a backup forgoes the ability
>> to do things like the clever incremental backups that ZFS c
Mike said:
> 3) ZFS ability to recognize duplicate blocks and store only one copy.
> I'm not sure the best way to do this, but my thought was to have ZFS
> remember what the checksums of every block are. As new blocks are
> written, the checksum of the new block is compared to known checksums.
>
Justin Stringfellow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why aren't you using amanda or something else that uses
> > tar as the means by which you do a backup?
>
> Using something like tar to take a backup forgoes the ability to do things
> like the clever incremental backups that ZFS can achieve tho
Darren Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To put the cat amongst the pigeons here, there were those
> within Sun that tried to tell the ZFS team that a backup
> program such as zfsdump was necessary but we got told
> that amanda and other tools were what people used these
> days (in corporate accou
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
> tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
...
> # mt -f /dev/rmt/0cbn status
> HP DAT-72 tape drive:
>sense key(0x0)= No Additional Sense residua
On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Bill Moore wrote:
That said, we actually did talk to a lot of customers during the
development of ZFS. The overwhelming majority of them had a backup
scheme that did not involve ufsdump. I know there are folks that live
and die by ufsdump, but most customers have ot
> Hi,
>
>> Note though that neither of them will backup the ZFS properties, but
>> even zfs send/recv doesn't do that either.
>
> From a previous post, i remember someone saying that was being added,
> or at least being suggested.
Perhaps Solaris 10 Update 4 and snv_b54 or similar time frame.
_
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>> (2.2) Use Samba to share out the whole filesystem tree and then
>> backup with Veritas NetBackup on a Microsoft Windows server.
>
> If you are going to use Veritas NetBackup why not use the native Solaris
> client ?
I don't have it here at home and i
>
>> Why aren't you using amanda or something else that uses
>> tar as the means by which you do a backup?
>
> Using something like tar to take a backup forgoes the ability to do things
> like the clever incremental backups that ZFS can achieve though; e.g. only
> backing the few blocks that have
> To put the cat amongst the pigeons here, there were those
> within Sun that tried to tell the ZFS team that a backup
> program such as zfsdump was necessary but we got told
> that amanda and other tools were what people used these
> days (in corporate accounts) and therefore zfsdump and
> zfsres
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:15:19PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>> A very good suggestion.
>>
>> However ... there had to be a "however" eh?
>>
>> I seem to have this unwritten expectation that with ZFS I would get
>> everything that I always had with UFS and SVM without losing a feature.
>> T
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> I seem to have this unwritten expectation that with ZFS I would get
>> everything that I always had with UFS and SVM without losing a feature.
>> The
>> ufsbackup and ufsrestore command will both do a complete dump of a UFS
>> filesystem plus incrementals and all the meta
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 08:20:50AM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
> tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
>
> ...
>
> Of course it took a number of hours for that I/O error to appear because the
> t
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:15:19PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> A very good suggestion.
>
> However ... there had to be a "however" eh?
>
> I seem to have this unwritten expectation that with ZFS I would get
> everything that I always had with UFS and SVM without losing a feature. The
> ufsb
Dennis Clarke wrote:
I seem to have this unwritten expectation that with ZFS I would get
everything that I always had with UFS and SVM without losing a feature. The
ufsbackup and ufsrestore command will both do a complete dump of a UFS
filesystem plus incrementals and all the metadata also.
Re
> On 7/7/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok.. not exactly a ZFS native solution but...
>
>>
>> As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
>> tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
>>
> snip
>
>>
>> (2) perhaps I can use f
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
offtopic query :
How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
The real problem is VA fragmentation, not consumption. Over time, ZFS's
heavy use of the VM system causes the address sp
> If you are going to use Veritas NetBackup why not use the
> native Solaris client ?
I don't suppose anyone knows if Networker will become zfs-aware at any
point?
e.g.
backing up properties
backing up an entire pool as a single save set
efficient incrementals (something similar to "zfs s
On 7/7/06, Darren Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To put the cat amongst the pigeons here, there were those
within Sun that tried to tell the ZFS team that a backup
program such as zfsdump was necessary but we got told
that amanda and other tools were what people used these
days (in corporate acc
Hi,
Note though that neither of them will backup the ZFS properties, but
even zfs send/recv doesn't do that either.
From a previous post, i remember someone saying that was being added,
or at least being suggested.
Patrick
___
zfs-discuss mailing
Dennis Clarke wrote:
(2.2) Use Samba to share out the whole filesystem tree and then
backup with Veritas NetBackup on a Microsoft Windows server.
If you are going to use Veritas NetBackup why not use the native Solaris
client ?
Or use Legato Networker which is what is used
> Why aren't you using amanda or something else that uses
> tar as the means by which you do a backup?
Using something like tar to take a backup forgoes the ability to do things like
the clever incremental backups that ZFS can achieve though; e.g. only backing
the few blocks that have changed i
Hello Peter,
Friday, July 7, 2006, 2:02:49 PM, you wrote:
PvG> Can anyone tell me why pool created with zpool are also zfs file
PvG> systems (and mounted) which can be used for storing files? It
PvG> would have been more transparent if pool would not allow the storage of
files.
Pool itself is
To put the cat amongst the pigeons here, there were those
within Sun that tried to tell the ZFS team that a backup
program such as zfsdump was necessary but we got told
that amanda and other tools were what people used these
days (in corporate accounts) and therefore zfsdump and
zfsrestore wasn't
On 7/7/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok.. not exactly a ZFS native solution but...
As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
snip
(2) perhaps I can use find and tar or cpio t
As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
Here is what I just tried :
# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
zfs0 100G 65.8G 27.5K /export/zfs
zfs0/bac
Can anyone tell me why pool created with zpool are also zfs file systems (and
mounted) which can be used for storing files? It would have been more
transparent if pool would not allow the storage of files.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
offtopic query :
How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
The real problem is VA fragmentation, not consumption. Over time, ZFS's
heavy use
>Interesting, I saw and helped debug a very similar sounding problem
>with VxVM and VxFS on an E10k with 15TB of EMC storage and 10,000 NFS
>shares years ago. This was on Solaris 2.6 so even though it was
>UltraSPARC CPU there was still only a 32bit address space.
>
>Jeff Bonwick supplied th
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 09:50:47AM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Eric Schrock wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
> >> offtopic query :
> >> How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
> >>
> >
> >The real problem is VA fragmentation, not co
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
offtopic query :
How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
The real problem is VA fragmentation, not consumption. Over time, ZFS's
heavy use of the VM system causes the address space to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:59:29AM +0800, Raymond Xiong wrote:
It doesn't. Page 11 of the following slides illustrates how COW
works in ZFS:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/zfs_last.pdf
"Blocks containing active data are never overwritten in place
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:59:29AM +0800, Raymond Xiong wrote:
> It doesn't. Page 11 of the following slides illustrates how COW
> works in ZFS:
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/zfs_last.pdf
>
> "Blocks containing active data are never overwritten in place;
> instead, a new bl
43 matches
Mail list logo
