Sweet!
Thank you! :)
Bill
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Hi All,
What exactly import and export commands will do ?
Are they similar to mount and unmount ?
How import differs from mount and how export differs from umount ?
If you run zpool import command, it will lists all theimportable zpools and
the devices which are part of
> 2. Back to Solaris Volume Manager (SVM), I guess. It's too bad too, because I
> don't like it with 2 SATA disks either. There isn't enough drives to put the
> State Database Replicas so that if either drive failed, the system would
> reboot unattended. Unless there is a trick?
There is a tric
k, Thanks for the tip.
I spent a day trying it out, and this is what I learned ...
1. Solaris 10 (2007-08) doesn't have the "ZFS Boot Bits" installed
2. Only OpenSolaris version snv_62 or later has "ZFS Boot Bits"
3. Even if I got OpenSolaris working with ZFS booting the system, with a 2 disk
SA
Vincent Fox wrote:
>> Solaris Cluster 3.2 supports Solaris 10 8/07 (aka
>> u4). Where did you hear that
>> it didn't?
>
> Took an Advanced Clustering class a few weeks before U4 came out. At that
> time I think the instructor said U3 was the "supported" configuration and
> he wasn't sure when U4
On Sep 27, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Vincent Fox wrote:
> So will this "nocache" option work in U4?
Yes, it's in there:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/$ cat /etc/release
Solaris 10 8/07 s10x_u4wos_12b X86
Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Roch - PAE wrote:
> Pawel Jakub Dawidek writes:
> > I'm CCing zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org, as this doesn't look like
> > FreeBSD-specific problem.
> >
> > It looks there is a problem with block allocation(?) when we are near
> > quota limit. tank/foo dataset has quota set to 10m:
> >
> >
>> 1. My understanding of the situation is having a zpool on a single
LUN precludes some ZFS technology such as self-healing, hence is not
best practice. Right?
>For important data and when you have only one LUN (eg. arrays) using
copies is a way to manage your redundancy policies for each file
William Papolis wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I know this is an OpenSolaris forum, and likely if I used OpenSolaris I could
> make this script work ...
>
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/boot/zfsboot-manual/
>
> ..but I was trying to make it work with Solaris 10 (2007-08) and I got
A couple of Neptunes or a server with a Niagara T2 will fix that (10GigE)
:^)
On 9/27/07, David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, as I said, I see no realistic risk of pushing the performance
> limits of a home file server. I get *less* bandwidth through the
> network than I do fr
Solaris wrote:
> You don't have to do it all at once... ZFS will function fine with 1
> large disk and 1 small disk in a mirror, it just means you will only
> have the as much space as the smaller disk.
>
Sure, but you get no *benefit* until you've done it all, so you "have
to" in terms of act
Not long ago, I had a problem where I couldn't access a pool that
was served up by a hardware raid card, after the raid card had
been changed due to a hardware fault.
As I recall, the devid of the devices in the pool didn't match
once the hardware had been changed. The solution to this
problem app
hello, a puzzle i hope you can shed some light on:
I have two systems, built at different times, but running very similar
software configurations (same hardware, patch rev). They *should* have
near-identical load, as they are performing the same function in
parallel behind a load balancer.
Howe
You don't have to do it all at once... ZFS will function fine with 1
large disk and 1 small disk in a mirror, it just means you will only
have the as much space as the smaller disk.
As of things now, if you have multiple vdevs in a pool and they are of
diverse capacities, the striping becomes less
Bruce Shaw wrote:
> I've been presented with the following scenario:
>
> - this is to be used primarily for ORACLE, including usage of ORACLE
> RMAN backups (to disk)
> - HP SAN (will NOT do JBOD)
> - 256 Gb disk available on high-speed Fibre Channel disk, currently on
> one LUN (1)
I presume th
Solaris wrote:
> I considered this as well, but that's the beauty of marrying ZFS with
> a hotplug SATA backplane :)
>
> I chose the to use the 5-in-3 hot-swap chassis in order to give me a
> way to upgrade capacity in place, though the 4-in-3 would be as easy,
> though with higher risk.
>
> 1. ho
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Blake wrote:
> For SATA support, try to stick to the Marvell/Supermicro Card, LSI, certain
> Intel and Nvidia, and the Silicon Image 3112 and 3114 chipsets. The Sun HCL
Avoid the 3112 and 3114. Last I looked they are supported by the
legacy ata driver and performance is, f
Christopher Gibbs wrote:
> On 9/27/07, David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> How long are you going to need this data? Do you have an easy and quick
>> way to back it all up? Is the volume you need going to grow over time?
>> For *my* home server, the need to expand over time e
On 26/09/2007, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm about to build a fileserver and I think I'm gonna use OpenSolaris and ZFS.
>
> I've got a 40GB PATA disk which will be the OS disk,
Would be nice to remove that as a SPOF.
I know ZFS likes whole disks, but I wonder how much would perform
I did that - it was nice. Took forever though on my PIII 700mhz :^)
blake/
On 9/27/07, Solaris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I considered this as well, but that's the beauty of marrying ZFS with
> a hotplug SATA backplane :)
>
> I chose the to use the 5-in-3 hot-swap chassis in order to give me
>
> Solaris Cluster 3.2 supports Solaris 10 8/07 (aka
> u4). Where did you hear that
> it didn't?
Took an Advanced Clustering class a few weeks before U4 came out. At that time
I think the instructor said U3 was the "supported" configuration and he wasn't
sure when U4 would be a verified and s
I considered this as well, but that's the beauty of marrying ZFS with
a hotplug SATA backplane :)
I chose the to use the 5-in-3 hot-swap chassis in order to give me a
way to upgrade capacity in place, though the 4-in-3 would be as easy,
though with higher risk.
1. hot-plug a new 500GB SATA disk
I was recently evaluating much the same question but with out only a
single pool and sizing my disks equally.
I only need about 500GB of usable space and so I was considering the
value of 4x 250GB SATA Drives versus 5x 160GB SATA drives.
I had intended to use an AMS 5 disk in 3 5.25" bay hot-swap
David, mind sharing the specifics of your configuration?
I'm also about to re-configure my home file server so I'm interested
in what configurations people are using.
On 9/27/07, David Dyer-Bennet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Blake wrote:
> >> Obviously from a cost AND size perspective it would b
Hello there,
I know this is an OpenSolaris forum, and likely if I used OpenSolaris I could
make this script work ...
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/boot/zfsboot-manual/
..but I was trying to make it work with Solaris 10 (2007-08) and I got as far
as Step #5 before I encounte
> David Runyon sun.com> writes:
> >
> > I'm trying to get maybe 200 MB/sec over NFS for
> large movie files (need
>
> (I assume you meant 200 Mb/sec with a lower case
> "b".)
>
> > large capacity to hold all of them). Are there any
> rules of thumb on how
> > much RAM is needed to handle this (
Blake wrote:
>> Obviously from a cost AND size perspective it would be best/smart to go
>> for option 3 and have a raidz of 4x250 and one of 6x500.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>>
How long are you going to need this data? Do you have an easy and quick
way to back it all up? Is the volume you need go
For SATA support, try to stick to the Marvell/Supermicro Card, LSI, certain
Intel and Nvidia, and the Silicon Image 3112 and 3114 chipsets. The Sun HCL
is invaluable here.
Note that you want ZFS to be looking directly at the disks, not at some
abstraction created by hardware RAID controllers. Th
Hmm.. Thanks for the input. I want to have the most space but still need a raid
in some way to have redundancy.
I've added it up and found this:
ggendel - your suggestiong makes me "loose" 1TB - Loose 250GBx2 for the raid-1
ones and then 500GB from a 3x500GB = 1TB
bonwick - your first suggestion
Pete Majka wrote:
> I have a raidz zpool comprised of 5 320GB SATA drives and I am seeing the
> following numbers.
>
>capacity operationsbandwidth
> pool used avail read write read write
> -- - - - - - -
> vol01 12
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Jeff Bonwick wrote:
> I would keep it simple. Let's call your 250GB disks A, B, C, D,
> and your 500GB disks X and Y. I'd either make them all mirrors:
>
>zpool create mypool mirror A B mirror C D mirror X Y
>
> or raidz the little ones and mirror the big ones:
>
>zp
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Jason P. Warr wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have an interesting project that I am working on. It is a large
> volume file download service that is in need of a new box. There
> current systems are not able to handle the load because for various
> reasons they have become very I/
32 matches
Mail list logo
