To my astonishment, the problem has turned out to be a bad power supply after
all. I didn't believe it until some of the SCSI drives in the same box started
acting up also.
Score: ZFS: 1, $180 OCZ PowerStream 600: 0 :)
I would still argue that a salvager would be a useful addition to ZFS for
On 1/19/08, Fred Zlotnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, of course, many other enterprise customers _have_ adopted
> ZFS, and are quite happy with it. For a list of ZFS reference
> customers please contact Solaris Marketing. ZFS is used in many
> mission critical roles today, and by and large
On 1/19/08, Paul Kraus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect that the amount of changes / discussion is no less
> for ZFS than for any new filesystem, just that due to the open source
> nature of it the discussions are in public view. The fact that the
> issues *are* being discussed is a h
On 1/19/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On what do you base that statement ?
>
> How do you "see" what enterprises are adopting ?
>
> State your sources please.
Out of the many I work on only one's been keen on adopting it any time
soon, another one's planning to look into it but
Anyone out there using sharenfs=on with a large amount
of filesystems? We have over 1 filesystems all in one
pool. Everything is great until we turn on sharenfs
(zfs set sharenfs=on poolName). Once that is enabled,
zfs create poolName/filesystem takes about 5 minutes to
complete. If nfs shari
I seem to remember hostid being added to the zpool to solve a bug for the poor
man's storage cluster.
Trying doing a zdb -v ( you should see 4 copies and note if hostid is a field
and if it differs from the current one)
you can also try a zpool import -f -a
I've seen cases where zfs mount -v
On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:23 AM, Sengor wrote:
> On 1/17/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Pardon my ignorance, but is ZFS with compression safe to use in a
>>> production environment?
>>
>> Yes, why wouldn't it be ? If it wasn't safe it wouldn't have been
>> delivered.
>
> Few reas
Hi!
We're running Solaris10u4 here on a Sun Fire 2200 (x86/Opteron) with 8 GB RAM,
and after a long time of problems I'm about to give up our zfs installation (on
a simple scsi hardware raid) because of massive problems with (low memory?)
deadlocks - even a simple 'zfs list' sometimes locks the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi richard,
> using kstat -m zfs as you recommended produces some
> interesting results in the L2 catagory
>
> I can see the l2_size field increase immediately
> after doing a:
> zpool add pool cache cache_device
> and the l2_hits value increase with each test
> run as t
Paul Kraus wrote:
> On 1/18/08, Sengor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Don't get me wrong, I believe ZFS is a great product to have come out
>> of Sun's software group, however I don't think it's matured enough to
>> be relied upon with mission crititcal systems. ZFS is changing too
>> fast to
Hello Thomas,
Friday, January 18, 2008, 11:29:11 AM, you wrote:
TMK> Robert Milkowski schrieb:
>> Hello Thomas,
>>
>> Friday, January 18, 2008, 10:31:17 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> TMK> Hi,
>>
>> TMK> I'd like to move a disk from one controller to another. This disk is
>> TMK> part of a mirror in a
Hello Victor,
Friday, January 18, 2008, 11:53:23 AM, you wrote:
>> I tried taking it offline and online again, but then zpool says the disk
>> is unavailable. Trying a zpool replace didn't work because it complains
>> that the "new" disk is part of a zfs pool...
VE> So it would look like a new d
Many enterprise customers have told us that they are waiting for
two features, not yet available in ZFS, before they will adopt
it widely in their datacenter environments:
- The ability to boot off of a ZFS partition. I don't actually
understand this one, since you can't boot Solaris from a Vx
Thanks for the note Anton. I let memtest86 run overnight and it found
no issues. I've also now moved the cards around and have confirmed that
slot #3 on the mobo is bad (all my aoc-sat2-mv8 cards, cables, and
backplanes are OK).
However, I think its more than just slot #3 that has a fault b
Sengor wrote:
> On 1/18/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Simply FUD.
>
> I don't see many enterprises adopting ZFS even though it's been
> officially out for a while now.
On what do you base that statement ?
How do you "see" what enterprises are adopting ?
State your sources pl
On 1/18/08, Sengor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't see many enterprises adopting ZFS even though it's been
> officially out for a while now. Looking over the mailing list and
> numbers of ZFS patches, it's enough to scare lots of people away.
I suspect that the amount of changes / di
On 1/18/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simply FUD.
I don't see many enterprises adopting ZFS even though it's been
officially out for a while now. Looking over the mailing list and
numbers of ZFS patches, it's enough to scare lots of people away.
Don't get me wrong, I believe ZF
Roch - PAE wrote:
> Manoj Nayak writes:
> > Roch - PAE wrote:
> > > Why do you want greater than 128K records.
> > >
> > A single-parity RAID-Z pool on thumper is created & it consists of four
> > disk.Solaris 10 update 4 runs on thumper.Then zfs filesystem is created in
> > the pool.1
Sengor wrote:
> On 1/17/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Pardon my ignorance, but is ZFS with compression safe to use in a
>>> production environment?
>> Yes, why wouldn't it be ? If it wasn't safe it wouldn't have been
>> delivered.
>
> Few reasons -
> http://prefetch.net/blog
On 1/17/08, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Pardon my ignorance, but is ZFS with compression safe to use in a
> > production environment?
>
> Yes, why wouldn't it be ? If it wasn't safe it wouldn't have been
> delivered.
Few reasons -
http://prefetch.net/blog/index.php/2007/11/28/
> I tried taking it offline and online again, but then zpool says the disk
> is unavailable. Trying a zpool replace didn't work because it complains
> that the "new" disk is part of a zfs pool...
So it would look like a new disk to ZFS and not like a disk belonging
to a zpool.
Vic
___
Manoj Nayak writes:
> Roch - PAE wrote:
> > Why do you want greater than 128K records.
> >
> A single-parity RAID-Z pool on thumper is created & it consists of four
> disk.Solaris 10 update 4 runs on thumper.Then zfs filesystem is created in
> the pool.1 mb data is written to a file i
Hello Victor,
Friday, January 18, 2008, 11:35:27 AM, you wrote:
>> I tried taking it offline and online again, but then zpool says the disk
>> is unavailable. Trying a zpool replace didn't work because it complains
>> that the "new" disk is part of a zfs pool...
VE> So you offlined the disk and
> I tried taking it offline and online again, but then zpool says the disk
> is unavailable. Trying a zpool replace didn't work because it complains
> that the "new" disk is part of a zfs pool...
So you offlined the disk and moved it to the new controller and then
tried to add it back to the pool?
Robert Milkowski schrieb:
> Hello Thomas,
>
> Friday, January 18, 2008, 10:31:17 AM, you wrote:
>
> TMK> Hi,
>
> TMK> I'd like to move a disk from one controller to another. This disk is
> TMK> part of a mirror in a zfs pool. How can one do this without having to
> TMK> export/import the pool
Roch - PAE wrote:
> Why do you want greater than 128K records.
>
A single-parity RAID-Z pool on thumper is created & it consists of four
disk.Solaris 10 update 4 runs on thumper.Then zfs filesystem is created in
the pool.1 mb data is written to a file in filesystem using write (2)
system c
Hello Thomas,
Friday, January 18, 2008, 10:31:17 AM, you wrote:
TMK> Hi,
TMK> I'd like to move a disk from one controller to another. This disk is
TMK> part of a mirror in a zfs pool. How can one do this without having to
TMK> export/import the pool or reboot the system?
TMK> I tried taking i
Hi,
I'd like to move a disk from one controller to another. This disk is
part of a mirror in a zfs pool. How can one do this without having to
export/import the pool or reboot the system?
I tried taking it offline and online again, but then zpool says the disk
is unavailable. Trying a zpool re
Why do you want greater than 128K records.
Do Check out :
http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/128k_suffice
-r
Manoj Nayak writes:
> Hi All,
>
> Is it not poosible to increase zfs record size beyond 128k.I am using
> Solaris 10 Update 4.
>
> I get following error when I try to set
Hi All,
Is it not poosible to increase zfs record size beyond 128k.I am using
Solaris 10 Update 4.
I get following error when I try to set zfs record size to 1024 k.
zfs set recordsize=1024k md9/test
cannot set property for 'md9/test': 'recordsize' must be power of 2 from
512 to 128k
Thanks
Ma
30 matches
Mail list logo
