On January 23, 2007 8:11:24 PM -0200 Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Still, would be nice for those of us who bought them. And judging by
other posts on this thread it seems just about everyone assumes hotswap
"just works".
hot *plug* :-)
-frank
__
On 25/01/07, Adam Leventhal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 08:52:47PM +, Dick Davies wrote:
> that's an excellent feature addition, look forward to it.
> Will it be accompanied by a 'zfs join'?
Out of curiosity, what will you (or anyone else) use this for? If the idea
is
...such that a snapshot (cloned if need be) won't do what you want?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Hi Wee,
Having snapshots in the filesystem that work so well is really nice.
How are y'all quiescing the DB?
Best Regards,
J
On 1/24/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/25/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> after all, what was ZFS going to do with that expensive
On 1/25/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
after all, what was ZFS going to do with that expensive but useless
hardware RAID controller? ...
I almost rolled over reading this.
This is exactly what I went through when we moved our database server
out from Vx** to ZFS. We had a
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:39:25AM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello zfs-discuss,
>
> On another thumper I have a failing drive (port resets, etc.) so I
> issued over a week ago drive replacement. Well it still hasn't
> completed even 4% in a week! The pool config is the same. It's just
> waa
> >On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:15:21AM -0700, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> >>Wow. That's an incredibly cool story. Thank you for sharing it! Does
> >>the Thumper today pretty much resemble what you saw then?
> >
> >Yes, amazingly so: 4-way, 48 spindles, 4u. The real beauty of the
> >match betwee
Hello David,
Thursday, January 25, 2007, 1:47:57 AM, you wrote:
DM> On Jan 24, 2007, at 04:06, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:15:21AM -0700, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
>>> Wow. That's an incredibly cool story. Thank you for sharing it! Does
>>> the Thumper today pretty much
On Jan 24, 2007, at 04:06, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:15:21AM -0700, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Wow. That's an incredibly cool story. Thank you for sharing it! Does
the Thumper today pretty much resemble what you saw then?
Yes, amazingly so: 4-way, 48 spindles, 4u. Th
Ben Gollmer wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Shannon Roddy wrote:
>
>> I went with a third party FC/SATA unit which has been flawless as
>> a direct attach for my ZFS JBOD system. Paid about $0.70/GB.
>
> What did you use, if you don't mind my asking?
>
Arena Janus 6641. Turns out I und
Hello zfs-discuss,
Subject says it all.
I first checked - no IO activity at all to the pool named thumper-2.
So I started replacing one drive with 'zpool replace thumper-2 c7t7d0
c4t1d0'.
Now the question is why am I seeing writes to other disks than c7t7d0?
Also why in case of replacing a d
comment below...
Peter Schuller wrote:
In many situations it may not feel worth it to move to a raidz2 just to
avoid this particular case.
I can't think of any, but then again, I get paid to worry about failures
:-)
Given that one of the tauted features of ZFS is data integrity, including in
Hello James,
Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 10:31:46 PM, you wrote:
JFH> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> Hello James,
>>
>> Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 3:20:14 PM, you wrote:
>>
>> JFH> Since we're talking about various hardware configs, does anyone know
>> JFH> which controllers with battery backup
Hello Peter,
Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 10:24:22 PM, you wrote:
PE> Ie:
ZFS ->> HBA -> FC Switch -> JBOD -> "Simple" FC-SATA-converter -> SATA disk
PE>
Why bother with switch here?
--
Best regards,
Robertmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> #1 is speed. You can aggregate 4x1Gbit ethernet and still not touch 4Gb/sec
> FC.
> #2 drop in compatibility. I'm sure people would love to drop this into an
> existing SAN
#2 is the key for me. And I also have a #3:
FC has been around a long time now. The HBAs and Switches are (more or le
> > Specifically, I was trying to compare ZFS snapshots with LVM snapshots on
> > Linux. One of the tests does writes to an ext3FS (that's on top of an LVM
> > snapshot) mounted synchronously, in order to measure the real
> > Copy-on-write overhead. So, I was wondering if I could do the same with
On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:37 PM, Shannon Roddy wrote:
I went with a third party FC/SATA unit which has been flawless as
a direct attach for my ZFS JBOD system. Paid about $0.70/GB.
What did you use, if you don't mind my asking?
--
Ben
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message
> > In many situations it may not feel worth it to move to a raidz2 just to
> > avoid this particular case.
>
> I can't think of any, but then again, I get paid to worry about failures
> :-)
Given that one of the tauted features of ZFS is data integrity, including in
the case of cheap drives, tha
> Specifically, I was trying to compare ZFS snapshots with LVM snapshots on
> Linux. One of the tests does writes to an ext3FS (that's on top of an LVM
> snapshot) mounted synchronously, in order to measure the real
> Copy-on-write overhead. So, I was wondering if I could do the same with
> ZFS. Se
Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello James,
>
> Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 3:20:14 PM, you wrote:
>
> JFH> Since we're talking about various hardware configs, does anyone know
> JFH> which controllers with battery backup are supported on Solaris? If
> JFH> we build a big ZFS box I'd like to be able
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:57 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello James,
Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 3:20:14 PM, you wrote:
JFH> Since we're talking about various hardware configs, does
anyone know
JFH> which controllers with battery backup are supported on
Solaris? If
JFH> we build a big ZFS b
Hello James,
Wednesday, January 24, 2007, 3:20:14 PM, you wrote:
JFH> Since we're talking about various hardware configs, does anyone know
JFH> which controllers with battery backup are supported on Solaris? If
JFH> we build a big ZFS box I'd like to be able to turn on write caching
JFH> on the d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryan Cantrill wrote:
well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi" was the
last thing on anyone's mind. I believe Fowler's intention was "one that
thumps" (or, in the unique parlance of a certain Co
>Bryan Cantrill wrote:
>>> well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
>>
>> You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi" was the
>> last thing on anyone's mind. I believe Fowler's intention was "one that
>> thumps" (or, in the unique parlance of a certain Commander-in
On 23/01/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can you pick another name for this please because that name has already
been suggested for zfs(1) where the argument is a directory in an
existing ZFS file system and the result is that the directory becomes a
new ZFS file system while reta
Bryan Cantrill wrote:
well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi" was the
last thing on anyone's mind. I believe Fowler's intention was "one that
thumps" (or, in the unique parlance of a certain Commander-in-Chief,
"one th
No such facility exists to automagically convert an existing UFS filesystem to
ZFS. You've to create a new ZFS pool/filesystem and then move your data.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
I've used the COMPRESS feature for quite a while and you can flip back and
forth without any problem. When you turn the compress ON nothing happens to the
existing data. However when you start updating your files all new blocks will
be compressed; so it is possible to have your file be composed
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Shannon Roddy wrote:
> Sun is missing out on lots of lower end storage, but perhaps that is by
> design. I am a small shop by many standards, but I would have spent
> tens of thousands over the last few years with Sun if they had
> reasonably priced storage.I just need a
> And this feature is independant on whether or not the data is
> DMA'ed straight into the user buffer.
I suppose so, however, it seems like it would make more sense to
configure a dataset property that specifically describes the caching
policy that is desired. When directio implies different
Frank Cusack wrote:
> On January 24, 2007 9:40:41 AM -0800 Richard Elling
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Peter Eriksson wrote:
>>> Yes please. Now give me a fairly cheap (but still quality) FC-attached
>>> JBOD utilizing SATA/SAS disks and I'll be really happy! :-)
>>
>> ... with write cache and
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:25:26PM -0500, Angelo Rajadurai wrote:
> If your company can qualify as a start-up (4 year old or less with less
> than 150 employees) you may want to look at the Sun Startup essentials
> program. It provides Sun hardware at big discounts for startups.
>
> http://www.sun
'Cept the 3511 is highway robbery for what you get. ;-)
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/24/07, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Peter Eriksson wrote:
>> too much of our future roadmap, suffice it to say that one should expect
>> much, much more from Sun in this vein: innovative software and i
On 24 Jan 2007, at 13:04, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:46:11AM -0800, Moazam Raja wrote:
Well, he did say fairly cheap. the ST 3511 is about $18.5k. That's
about the same price for the low-end NetApp FAS250 unit.
Note that the 3511 is being replaced with the 6140:
htt
On January 24, 2007 10:02:52 AM -0800 Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Dunno about FC or iSCSI, but what I'd really like to see is a 1U direct
attach 8-drive SAS JBOD, as described (back in May 2006!) here:
http://richteer.blogspot.com/2006/05/sun-storage-product-i-would-like-to.h
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
> I think it's safe to say that Fowler was thinking more along the lines
Presumably, that's John Fowler?
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
On January 24, 2007 9:40:41 AM -0800 Richard Elling
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Peter Eriksson wrote:
Yes please. Now give me a fairly cheap (but still quality) FC-attached
JBOD utilizing SATA/SAS disks and I'll be really happy! :-)
... with write cache and dual redundant controllers? I think
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Sean McGrath - Sun Microsystems Ireland wrote:
> Bryan Cantrill stated:
> <
> < > well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
>
> I keep thinking of the classic AC/DC song when Fowler and thumpers are
> mentioned.. s/thunder/thumper/
Yeah, AC/DC songs seem to be m
> You can take your pick of things that thump here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumper
I think it's safe to say that Fowler was thinking more along the lines
of whomever dubbed the M79 grenade launcher -- which you can safely bet
was not named after a fictional bunny...
- Bryan
On 1/24/07, Jonathan Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 24, 2007, at 09:25, Peter Eriksson wrote:
>> too much of our future roadmap, suffice it to say that one should
>> expect
>> much, much more from Sun in this vein: innovative software and
>> innovative
>> hardware working together to
On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:41, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi"
was the
last thing on anyone's mind. I believe Fowler's intention was "one
that
thumps" (or, in the unique parlance of a
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
> > Yes please. Now give me a fairly cheap (but still quality) FC-attached JBOD
> > utilizing SATA/SAS disks and I'll be really happy! :-)
>
> Could you outline why FC attached instead of network attached (iSCSI say)
> makes more sense to you? It migh
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:46:11AM -0800, Moazam Raja wrote:
> Well, he did say fairly cheap. the ST 3511 is about $18.5k. That's
> about the same price for the low-end NetApp FAS250 unit.
Note that the 3511 is being replaced with the 6140:
http://www.sun.com/storagetek/disk_systems/midrange
Neal Pollack wrote:
> I have an 800GB raidz2 zfs filesystem. It already has approx 142Gb of
> data.
> Can I simply turn on compression at this point, or do you need to start
> with compression at the creation time?
As I understand it, you can turn compression on and off at will.
Data will be writ
Bryan Cantrill stated:
<
< > well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
I keep thinking of the classic AC/DC song when Fowler and thumpers are
mentioned.. s/thunder/thumper/
<
< You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi" was the
< last thing on anyone's mind.
>I have an 800GB raidz2 zfs filesystem. It already has approx 142Gb of data.
>Can I simply turn on compression at this point, or do you need to start
>with compression
>at the creation time? If I turn on compression now, what happens to the
>existing data?
Yes. Nothing.
Casper
_
Well, he did say fairly cheap. the ST 3511 is about $18.5k. That's
about the same price for the low-end NetApp FAS250 unit.
-Moazam
On Jan 24, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
Peter Eriksson wrote:
too much of our future roadmap, suffice it to say that one should
expect
much, much m
I have an 800GB raidz2 zfs filesystem. It already has approx 142Gb of data.
Can I simply turn on compression at this point, or do you need to start
with compression
at the creation time? If I turn on compression now, what happens to the
existing data?
Thanks,
Neal
_
> well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi" was the
last thing on anyone's mind. I believe Fowler's intention was "one that
thumps" (or, in the unique parlance of a certain Commander-in-Chief,
"one that gives a thumpin'").
Peter Eriksson wrote:
too much of our future roadmap, suffice it to say that one should expect
much, much more from Sun in this vein: innovative software and innovative
hardware working together to deliver world-beating systems with undeniable
economics.
Yes please. Now give me a fairly cheap (
On Jan 24, 2007, at 06:54, Roch - PAE wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note also that for most applications, the size of their IO
operations
would often not match the current page size of the buffer, causing
additional performance and scalability issues.
Thanks for mentioning this, I forgo
I think this will be a hard sell internally given that it would eat up their
own storagetek line.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discu
On Jan 24, 2007, at 09:25, Peter Eriksson wrote:
too much of our future roadmap, suffice it to say that one should
expect
much, much more from Sun in this vein: innovative software and
innovative
hardware working together to deliver world-beating systems with
undeniable
economics.
Yes p
Hi Guys,
I completely forgot to unsubscribe to the zfs list before changing email
addresses, and no longer have access to the old one. Is there someone I can
contact about manually removing my old address, or updating it with my new one?
Thanks!
--Tim
This message posted from opensolaris.
> too much of our future roadmap, suffice it to say that one should expect
> much, much more from Sun in this vein: innovative software and innovative
> hardware working together to deliver world-beating systems with undeniable
> economics.
Yes please. Now give me a fairly cheap (but still quality
Dennis Clarke wrote:
Ihsan Dogan wrote:
I think you hit a major bug in ZFS personally.
For me it also looks like a bug.
I think we don't have enough information to judge. If you have a supported
version of Solaris, open a case and supply all the data (crash dump!) you
have.
I agree we ne
> Am 24.1.2007 14:59 Uhr, Dennis Clarke schrieb:
>
>>> Jan 23 17:25:26 newponit genunix: [ID 408822 kern.info] NOTICE: glm0:
>>> fault detected in device; service still available
>>> Jan 23 17:25:26 newponit genunix: [ID 611667 kern.info] NOTICE: glm0:
>>> Disconnected tagged cmd(s) (1) timeout fo
> Ihsan Dogan wrote:
>
>>>I think you hit a major bug in ZFS personally.
>>
>> For me it also looks like a bug.
>
> I think we don't have enough information to judge. If you have a supported
> version of Solaris, open a case and supply all the data (crash dump!) you
> have.
I agree we need da
Since we're talking about various hardware configs, does anyone know
which controllers with battery backup are supported on Solaris? If
we build a big ZFS box I'd like to be able to turn on write caching
on the drives but have them battery-backed in the event of a power
loss. Are 3ware cards going
Am 24.1.2007 14:59 Uhr, Dennis Clarke schrieb:
>> Jan 23 17:25:26 newponit genunix: [ID 408822 kern.info] NOTICE: glm0:
>> fault detected in device; service still available
>> Jan 23 17:25:26 newponit genunix: [ID 611667 kern.info] NOTICE: glm0:
>> Disconnected tagged cmd(s) (1) timeout for Target
Hello,
Am 24.1.2007 14:49 Uhr, Jason Banham schrieb:
> The panic looks due to the fact that your SVM state databases aren't
> all there, so when we came to update one of them we found there
> was <= 50% of the state databases and crashed.
The metadbs are fine. I haven't touched them at all:
[EM
Ihsan Dogan wrote:
I think you hit a major bug in ZFS personally.
For me it also looks like a bug.
I think we don't have enough information to judge. If you have a supported
version of Solaris, open a case and supply all the data (crash dump!) you have.
HTH
--
Michael SchusterS
Hello,
Am 24.1.2007 14:40 Uhr, Dennis Clarke schrieb:
>> We're setting up a new mailserver infrastructure and decided, to run it
>> on zfs. On a E220R with a D1000, I've setup a storage pool with four
>> mirrors:
>
>Good morning Ihsan ...
>
>I see that you have everything mirrored here,
> Hello Michael,
>
> Am 24.1.2007 14:36 Uhr, Michael Schuster schrieb:
>
>>> --
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] # zpool status
>>> pool: pool0
>>> state: ONLINE
>>> scrub: none requested
>>> config:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Jan 23 18:51:38 newponit ^
Hello Michael,
Am 24.1.2007 14:36 Uhr, Michael Schuster schrieb:
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] # zpool status
>> pool: pool0
>> state: ONLINE
>> scrub: none requested
>> config:
>
> [...]
>
>> Jan 23 18:51:38 newponit ^Mpanic[cpu2]/th
Afternoon,
The panic looks due to the fact that your SVM state databases aren't
all there, so when we came to update one of them we found there
was <= 50% of the state databases and crashed.
This doesn't look like anything to do with ZFS.
I'd check the output from metadb and see if it looks like
> Hello,
>
> We're setting up a new mailserver infrastructure and decided, to run it
> on zfs. On a E220R with a D1000, I've setup a storage pool with four
> mirrors:
Good morning Ihsan ...
I see that you have everything mirrored here, thats excellent.
When you pulled a disk, was it a
Ihsan Dogan wrote:
Hello,
We're setting up a new mailserver infrastructure and decided, to run it
on zfs. On a E220R with a D1000, I've setup a storage pool with four
mirrors:
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] # zpool status
pool: pool0
state: O
Hello,
We're setting up a new mailserver infrastructure and decided, to run it
on zfs. On a E220R with a D1000, I've setup a storage pool with four
mirrors:
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] # zpool status
pool: pool0
state: ONLINE
scrub: none re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Note also that for most applications, the size of their IO operations
> > would often not match the current page size of the buffer, causing
> > additional performance and scalability issues.
>
> Thanks for mentioning this, I forgot about it.
>
> Since ZFS's d
Chris,
well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
The comment about being risque was refering to "Humper" as
a codename proposed for a related server
( and e.g. leo.org confirms that is has a meaning labelled as "[vulg.]" :-)
-- Roland
Chris Ridd schrieb:
On 24/1/07 9:06, "Bryan Cant
On 24/1/07 9:06, "Bryan Cantrill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But Fowler said the name was too risque (!). Fortunately the name
> "Thumper" stuck...
I assumed it was a reference to Bambi... That's what comes from having small
children :-)
Cheers,
Chris
__
>Actually, it was meant to hold the entire electronic transcript of the
>George Bush impeachment proceedings ... we were thinking ahead.
Fortunately, larger disks became available in time.
Casper
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.or
Rainer Heilke wrote:
For the "clone another system" zfs send/recv might be
useful
Keeping in mind that you only want to send/recv one half of the ZFS mirror...
Huh ?
That doesn't make any sense. You can't send half a mirror. When you
are running zfs send it is a "read" and ZFS will read t
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:15:21AM -0700, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> Wow. That's an incredibly cool story. Thank you for sharing it! Does
> the Thumper today pretty much resemble what you saw then?
Yes, amazingly so: 4-way, 48 spindles, 4u. The real beauty of the
match between ZFS and Thumpe
75 matches
Mail list logo
