Roland Mainz wrote:
> Bill Shannon wrote:
>> Roland Mainz wrote:
>>> What's the exact filename and how often are the accesses ? Is this an
>>> interactive shell or is this a script (an interactive shell session will
>>> do periodical lookups for things like the MAIL*-variables (see ksh(1)
>>> and k
Bill Shannon wrote:
> Roland Mainz wrote:
> > What's the exact filename and how often are the accesses ? Is this an
> > interactive shell or is this a script (an interactive shell session will
> > do periodical lookups for things like the MAIL*-variables (see ksh(1)
> > and ksh93(1) manual pages) w
Nathan: yes. Flipping each bit and recomputing the checksum is not only
possible, we actually did it in early versions of the code. The problem
is that it's really expensive. For a 128K block, that's a million bits,
so you have to re-run the checksum a million times, on 128K of data.
That's 128G
Hey there -
whilst trying to re-create some other performance issues, I came across
an ls -l that hung waiting for an rm to complete.
The file was a 176GB file, and I was rm'ing it to clear some space for
more tests.
At the time I was rming it, I was attempting to do an ls -l and found it
hun
Roland Mainz wrote:
> What's the exact filename and how often are the accesses ? Is this an
> interactive shell or is this a script (an interactive shell session will
> do periodical lookups for things like the MAIL*-variables (see ksh(1)
> and ksh93(1) manual pages) while scripts may do random stu
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
> Speaking of expensive, but interesting things we could do -
>
> From the little I know of ZFS's checksum, it's NOT like the ECC
> checksum we use in memory in that it's not something we can use to
> determine which bit flipped in the event that there was
Say, Jeff -
Speaking of expensive, but interesting things we could do -
From the little I know of ZFS's checksum, it's NOT like the ECC
checksum we use in memory in that it's not something we can use to
determine which bit flipped in the event that there was a single bit
flip in the data. (I
Bill Shannon wrote:
> Jonathan Edwards wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
> >> Ok, that's much better! At least I'm getting output when I touch files
> >> on zfs. However, even though zpool iostat is reporting activity, the
> >> above program isn't showing any file accesse
G'Day,
On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 08:58:53PM -0800, Bill Shannon wrote:
> Roch Bourbonnais wrote:
> >>> this came up sometime last year .. io:::start won't work since ZFS
> >>> doesn't call bdev_strategy() directly .. you'll want to use something
> >>> more like zfs_read:entry, zfs_write:entry and zf
The mail-stores for University of California Davis for 70K users (50K active)
are on ZFS since this summer. Perfect record of uptime.
It is very nice, if there is some question about the filesystem, to just run
zpool scrub on it while it's hot.
We ZFS mirror LUNs provided over SAN, with multip
We are encountering the same issue. Essentially ZFS has trouble stopping access
to a dead drive. We are testing out Solaris/ZFS and this is has become a very
serious issue for us.
Any help /fix for this would be greatly appreciated.
Reg: cfgadm --unconfigure ...
The recommendation seems to be
11 matches
Mail list logo
