Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> I suppose we're all just wrong. By George, you've got it! - bill This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> > Now, not being a psychic myself, I can't state > with > > authority that Stefano really meant to ask the > > question that he posed rather than something else. > > In retrospect, I suppose that some of his > > surrounding phrasing *might* suggest that he was > > attempting (however unskillfully

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> Actually, it's central to the issue: if you were > capable of understanding what I've been talking about > (or at least sufficiently humble to recognize the > depths of your ignorance), you'd stop polluting this > forum with posts lacking any technical content > whatsoever. I don't speak "full

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> Literacy has nothing to do with the glaringly obvious > BS you keep spewing. Actually, it's central to the issue: if you were capable of understanding what I've been talking about (or at least sufficiently humble to recognize the depths of your ignorance), you'd stop polluting this forum with

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

On Dec 6, 2007, at 00:03, Anton B. Rang wrote: >> what are you terming as "ZFS' incremental risk reduction"? > > I'm not Bill, but I'll try to explain. > > Compare a system using ZFS to one using another file system -- say, > UFS, XFS, or ext3. > > Consider which situations may lead to data los

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> Now, not being a psychic myself, I can't state with > authority that Stefano really meant to ask the > question that he posed rather than something else. > In retrospect, I suppose that some of his > surrounding phrasing *might* suggest that he was > attempting (however unskillfully) to twist my

Re: [zfs-discuss] Inherited quota question

Hi everyone, I have been following this thread and I feel that this has been resolved in the ZFS version 8, which is done as follows, bash-3.00# zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT tank 266K 263G 32.0K /tank tank/bm 28.8K 5.00G 28.8K /tank/bm tank/

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> what are you terming as "ZFS' incremental risk reduction"? I'm not Bill, but I'll try to explain. Compare a system using ZFS to one using another file system -- say, UFS, XFS, or ext3. Consider which situations may lead to data loss in each case, and the probability of each such situation.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS write time performance question

what firmware revision are you at? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

apologies in advance for prolonging this thread .. i had considered taking this completely offline, but thought of a few people at least who might find this discussion somewhat interesting .. at the least i haven't seen any mention of Merkle trees yet as the nerd in me yearns for On Dec 5,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> > I have budget constraints then I can use only > user-level storage. > > > > until I discovered zfs I used subversion and git, > but none of them is designe > > d to manage gigabytes of data, some to be > versioned, some to be unversioned. > > > > I can't afford silent data corruption and, if

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

Literacy has nothing to do with the glaringly obvious BS you keep spewing. Rather than answer a question, which couldn't be answered, because you were full of it, you tried to convince us all he really didn't know what he wanted. The assumption sure made an a$$ out of someone, but you should

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS write time performance question

This might have been affected by the cache flush issue -- if the 3310 flushes its NVRAM cache to disk on SYNCHRONIZE CACHE commands, then ZFS is penalizing itself. I don't know whether the 3310 firmware has been updated to support the SYNC_NV bit. It wasn't obvious on Sun's site where to downl

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Al Hopper wrote: > On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Eric Haycraft wrote: > > [... reformatted ] > >> Why are we still feeding this troll? Paid trolls deserve no response and >> there is no value in continuing this thread. (And no guys, he isn't being >> paid by NetApp.. think bigger)

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, can you guess? wrote: snip reformatted . > Changing ZFS's approach to snapshots from block-oriented to > audit-trail-oriented, in order to pave the way for a journaled > rather than shadow-paged approach to transactional consistency > (which then makes data re

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Stefano Spinucci wrote: > > >>> On 11/7/07, can you guess? > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> wrote: > >> However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source > approach > >> which may allow that to happen, so the real > question > >> becomes just how it compares with equally > inexpensive >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

can you guess? wrote: > > Primarily its checksumming features, since other open source solutions > support simple disk scrubbing (which given its ability to catch most > deteriorating disk sectors before they become unreadable probably has a > greater effect on reliability than checksums in any

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> I have budget constraints then I can use only user-level storage. > > until I discovered zfs I used subversion and git, but none of them is designe > d to manage gigabytes of data, some to be versioned, some to be unversioned. > > I can't afford silent data corruption and, if the final respons

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs mirroring question

The file systems are striped between the two mirrors. (If your disks are A, B, C, D then a single file's blocks would reside on disks A+B, then C+D, then A+B again.) If you lose A and B, or C and D, you lose the whole pool. (Hence if you have two power supplies, for instance, you'd probably w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> I was trying to get you > to evaluate ZFS's > > incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if > you actually > > did so you'd likely be surprised at how little > difference it makes > > - at least if you're at all rational about > assessing it). > > ok .. i'll bite since there's no

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Eric Haycraft wrote: [... reformatted ] > Why are we still feeding this troll? Paid trolls deserve no response > and there is no value in continuing this thread. (And no guys, he > isn't being paid by NetApp.. think bigger) The troll will continue > to try to downplay

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Stefano Spinucci wrote: >>> On 11/7/07, can you guess? >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> wrote: >> However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source approach >> which may allow that to happen, so the real question >> becomes just how it compares with equally inexpensive >> current and potentia

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

That would require coming up with something solid. Much like his generalization that there's already snapshotting and checksumming that exists for linux. yet when he was called out, he responded with a 20 page rant because there doesn't exist such a solution. It's far easier to condescend wh

Re: [zfs-discuss] Seperate ZIL

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Brian Hechinger wrote: > I will be putting 4 500GB SATA disks in my Ultra80. I currently have > two 10K rpm 73G SCSI disks in it with 10G for the OS (UFS) and the > remaining space for a ZFS pool (the two remaining partitions are setup > in a mirror). > > Would it be worth my

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

On Dec 5, 2007, at 17:50, can you guess? wrote: >> my personal-professional data are important (this is >> my valuation, and it's an assumption you can't >> dispute). > > Nor was I attempting to: I was trying to get you to evaluate ZFS's > incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if yo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

can you guess? wrote: > he isn't being > >> paid by NetApp.. think bigger >> > > O frabjous day! Yet *another* self-professed psychic, but one whose internal > voices offer different counsel. > > While I don't have to be psychic myself to know that they're *all* wrong > (that's an adva

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

he isn't being > paid by NetApp.. think bigger O frabjous day! Yet *another* self-professed psychic, but one whose internal voices offer different counsel. While I don't have to be psychic myself to know that they're *all* wrong (that's an advantage of fact-based rather than faith-based opinio

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> my personal-professional data are important (this is > my valuation, and it's an assumption you can't > dispute). Nor was I attempting to: I was trying to get you to evaluate ZFS's incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if you actually did so you'd likely be surprised at how little

Re: [zfs-discuss] Seperate ZIL

Hello Brian, Wednesday, December 5, 2007, 9:15:10 PM, you wrote: BH> I will be putting 4 500GB SATA disks in my Ultra80. I currently have BH> two 10K rpm 73G SCSI disks in it with 10G for the OS (UFS) and the BH> remaining space for a ZFS pool (the two remaining partitions are setup BH> in a mir

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS with Memory Sticks

Constantin Gonzalez wrote: > Hi Paul, > > yes, ZFS is platform agnostic and I know it works in SANs. > > For the USB stick case, you may have run into labeling issues. Maybe > Solaris SPARC did not recognize the x64 type label on the disk (which > is strange, because it should...). > > Did you try

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs mirroring question

On Dec 5, 2007 9:54 PM, Brian Lionberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I create two zfs's on one pool of four disks with two mirrors, such as... > / > zpool create tank mirror disk1 disk2 mirror disk3 disk4 > > zfs create tank/fs1 > zfs create tank/fs2/ > > Are fs1 and fs2 striped across all four di

[zfs-discuss] zfs mirroring question

I create two zfs's on one pool of four disks with two mirrors, such as... / zpool create tank mirror disk1 disk2 mirror disk3 disk4 zfs create tank/fs1 zfs create tank/fs2/ Are fs1 and fs2 striped across all four disks? If two disks fail that represent a 2-way mirror, do I lose data? Brian.

[zfs-discuss] Seperate ZIL

I will be putting 4 500GB SATA disks in my Ultra80. I currently have two 10K rpm 73G SCSI disks in it with 10G for the OS (UFS) and the remaining space for a ZFS pool (the two remaining partitions are setup in a mirror). Would it be worth my while to move all the data off of the zfs partitions of

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS performance with Oracle

Seconded. Redundant controllers means you get one controller that locks them both up, as much as it means you've got backup. Best Regards, Jason On Mar 21, 2007 4:03 PM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JS wrote: > > I'd definitely prefer owning a sort of SAN solution that would basica

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

Why are we still feeding this troll? Paid trolls deserve no response and there is no value in continuing this thread. (And no guys, he isn't being paid by NetApp.. think bigger) The troll will continue to try to downplay features of zfs and the community will counter...and on and on. This me

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> > > > On 11/7/07, can you guess? > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > wrote: > As I said in the post to which you responded, I > consider ZFS's ease of management to be more > important (given that even in high-end installations > storage management costs dwarf storage equipment > costs) than its real

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS performance with Oracle

basically you would add ZFS redundancy level, if you want to be protected from silent data corruption (data corruption that could occur somewhere along the IO path) - XP12000 has all the features to protect from hardware failure (no-SPOF) - ZFS has all the feature to protect from silent data corru

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

I > >> suspect ZFS will change that game in the future. > In > > particular for someone doing lots of editing, > >> snapshots can help recover from user error. > > > > Ah - so now the rationalization has changed to > snapshot support. > > Unfortunately for ZFS, snapshot support is pretty > comm

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

... > >> Hi bill, only a question: > >> I'm an ex linux user migrated to solaris for zfs > and > >> its checksumming; > > > > So the question is: do you really need that > feature (please > > quantify that need if you think you do), or do you > just like it > > because it makes you feel all w

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS with Memory Sticks

Hi Paul, yes, ZFS is platform agnostic and I know it works in SANs. For the USB stick case, you may have run into labeling issues. Maybe Solaris SPARC did not recognize the x64 type label on the disk (which is strange, because it should...). Did you try making sure that ZFS creates an EFI label

[zfs-discuss] Success Stories

Hi All, I am after some ZFS success stories in the ZFS community. The stories of replacing Veritas VM/FS with ZFS in bigger data volume environments. If there is please let me know the size and type of storage used, with applications ie: DB etc. Likewise I will take a hit on horror stories if

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

On 5-Dec-07, at 4:19 AM, can you guess? wrote: On 11/7/07, can you guess? >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source >> approach >>> which may allow that to happen, so the real >> question >>> becomes just how it compares with equally >> inexpensive >>>

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

On 4-Dec-07, at 9:35 AM, can you guess? wrote: > Your response here appears to refer to a different post in this > thread. > >> I never said I was a typical consumer. > > Then it's unclear how your comment related to the material which > you quoted (and hence to which it was apparently respon

[zfs-discuss] ZFS boot and GPT (Guid Partition Table - part of EFI spec.)

Hi, I would like to ask, whether is it possible to have my rootpool (it means zpool for root filesystem) on GPT partition ? From documentation, it looks like that I need to have Solaris fdisk partition on my disk and to have VTOC in that partition. Is it true ? If that is true, is there any proj

[zfs-discuss] Simultaneous access to a single ZFS volume

Hi ; When will ZFS support multiple servers accessing same file system ? Best regards http://www.sun.com/emrkt/sigs/6g_top.gif Mertol Ozyoney Storage Practice - Sales Manager Sun Microsystems, TR Istanbul TR Phone +902123352200 Mobile +905339310752 Fax +90212