Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I think the question is on the lines of how to
access and more importantly - Backup zfs pools/filesystems present on a system
by just booting from a CD/DVD.
I think the answer would be on the lines of (forced?) importing of zfs pools
present on the system and then
Dennis,
i'm not sure if this will help you, but i had something similar happen and was
able to get my zpool back.
i decided to install (not upgrade) Nevada snv-51 which was the current build at
the time. I had (and thankfully still have) a zpool which i'd created under
snv-37 on a separite disk
Calum Mackay wrote:
We have had file delegation on by default in NFSv4 since Solaris 10 FCS,
putback in July 2004.
The delegation of a file gives the client certain guarantees about how
that file may be accessed by other clients (regardless of NFS version)
or processes local to the NFS server
Bill,
I did the same test on the Thumper I'm working on with the NFS vols
converted from ZFS stripes to SVM stripes. In both cases same
number/type of disks in the stripe. In my very simple test ,time for
file in frame*; do cp /inq/$file /outq/$file; done, UFS did
approximately 64 MB/s, th
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 03:37:33PM +0100, Roch - PAE wrote:
> Al Hopper writes:
> > Hi Roch - you are correct in that the data presented was incomplete. I
> > did'nt present data for the same test with an NFS mount from the same
> > server, for a UFS based filesystem. So here is that data poin
> On 11/23/06, James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 11/23/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > assume worst case
>> >
>> > someone walks up to you and drops an array on you.
>> They say "its ZFS an' I need that der stuff 'k? " all while chewing on a
>> > cig.
>> >
>> >
On 11/23/06, James Dickens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/23/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> this is off list on purpose ?
>
> > run zpool import, it will search all attached storage and give you a
> list
> > of availible pools. then run zpool import poolname or add a
We have had file delegation on by default in NFSv4 since Solaris 10 FCS,
putback in July 2004.
We're currently working on also providing directory delegations - client
caching of directory contents - as part of the upcoming NFSv4.1.
cheers,
calum.
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Roch - PAE wrote:
One of the things that I have taken for granted was that I can *always* boot
a Sun server with a CDROM or DVD or jumpstart "boot net -srv" and get to a
prompt. That allows me to fsck filesystems and ufsdump to tape if needed.
In fact, I have generally done obscure things like fully install a serv
Roch - PAE wrote:
Not possible. Nothing related to ZFS here and if NFS had
ways to make this better i think it would have been done in v4.
If we extended the protocol to allow for exclusive mounts
(single client access) then, I would think that the extra
knowledge could be used to gain
Al Hopper writes:
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Roch - PAE wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Al, You conclude:
> >
> >No problem there! ZFS rocks. NFS/ZFS is a bad combination.
> >
> > But my reading of your data leads to:
> >
> >single threaded small file creation is much slower
> >over NFS
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Roch - PAE wrote:
>
> Hi Al, You conclude:
>
> No problem there! ZFS rocks. NFS/ZFS is a bad combination.
>
> But my reading of your data leads to:
>
> single threaded small file creation is much slower
> over NFS than locally. regardless of the server FS.
Hi Roch,
thanks, now I better understand the issue :).
> Nope. NFS is slow for single threaded tar extract. The
> conservative approach of NFS is needed with the NFS protocol
> in order to ensure client's side data integrity. Nothing ZFS
> related.
...
> NFS is plenty fast in a throughpu
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 12:09:09PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 03:38:05AM -0800, Peter Eriksson wrote:
> > There is nothing in the ZFS FAQ about this. I also fail to see how FMA
> > could make any difference since it seems that ZFS is deadlocking somewhere
> > in t
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 03:38:05AM -0800, Peter Eriksson wrote:
> There is nothing in the ZFS FAQ about this. I also fail to see how FMA could
> make any difference since it seems that ZFS is deadlocking somewhere in the
> kernel when this happens...
>
> It works if you wrap all the physical dev
Nope, wrong conclusion again.
This large performance degradation has nothing whatsoever to
do with ZFS. I have not seen data that would show a possible
slowness on the part of ZFS vfs AnyFS on the
backend; there may well be and that would be an entirely
diffenrent discussion to the large slowdo
Hi,
I haven't followed all the details in this discussion, but it seems to me
that it all breaks down to:
- NFS on ZFS is slow due to NFS being very conservative when sending
ACK to clients only after writes have definitely committed to disk.
- Therefore, the problem is not that much ZFS speci
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> here is my machine here ( Solaris 8 Ultra 2 200MHz )
>
> # cd /tmp
> # ptime /export/home/dclarke/star -x -time -z file=/tmp/emacs-21.4a.tar.gz
> /export/home/dclarke/star: 7457 blocks + 0 bytes (total of 76359680 bytes =
> 74570.00k).
> /export/home/dc
Hi Al, You conclude:
No problem there! ZFS rocks. NFS/ZFS is a bad combination.
But my reading of your data leads to:
single threaded small file creation is much slower
over NFS than locally. regardless of the server FS.
It's been posted on this alias before, Change Z
19 matches
Mail list logo
