Hey, Bob
My perspective on Big reasons for it *to* be integrated would be:
- It's tested - By the folks charged with making ZFS good
- It's kept in sync with the differing Zpool versions
- It's documented
- When the system *is* patched, any changes the patch brings are
synced with the rec
Nathan Kroenert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
>>>
>>> It does seem that some of us are getting a little caught up in disks
>>> and their magnificence in what they write to the platter and read
>>> back, and overlooking the poten
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
>> The circus trick can be handled via a user-contributed utility. In fact,
>> people can compete with their various repair utilities. There are only
>> 1048576 1-bit permuations to try, and then the various two-bit permutations
>> can be tried.
>
> T
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
>>
>> It does seem that some of us are getting a little caught up in disks
>> and their magnificence in what they write to the platter and read
>> back, and overlooking the potential value of a simple (though
>> potentially comp
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Nathan Kroenert wrote:
>
> It does seem that some of us are getting a little caught up in disks and
> their magnificence in what they write to the platter and read back, and
> overlooking the potential value of a simple (though potentially
> computationally expensive) circus
Jonathan,
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:14:14AM -0800, Jonathan Loran wrote:
> What I'm left with now is to do more expensive modifications to the new
> mirror to increase its size, or using zfs send | receive or rsync to
> copy the data, and have an extended down time for our users. Yuck!
Not su
Hey, Bob,
Though I have already got the answer I was looking for here, I thought
I'd at least take the time to provide my point of view as to my *why*...
First: I don't think any of us have forgotten the goodness that ZFS's
checksum *can* bring.
I'm also keenly aware that we have some customer
Shawn Ferry wrote:
On Mar 3, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Jonathan Loran wrote:
Now I know this is counterculture, but it's biting me in the back side
right now, and ruining my life.
I have a storage array (iSCSI SAN) that is performing badly, and
requires some upgrades/reconfiguration. I have a se
On Mar 3, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Jonathan Loran wrote:
>
> Now I know this is counterculture, but it's biting me in the back side
> right now, and ruining my life.
>
> I have a storage array (iSCSI SAN) that is performing badly, and
> requires some upgrades/reconfiguration. I have a second storage ar
Now I know this is counterculture, but it's biting me in the back side
right now, and ruining my life.
I have a storage array (iSCSI SAN) that is performing badly, and
requires some upgrades/reconfiguration. I have a second storage array
that I wanted to set up as a ZFS mirror so I could fre
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>
>
>>> I'm not convinced that single bit flips are the common
>>> failure mode for disks. Most enterprise class disks already
>>> have enough ECC to correct at least 8 bytes per block.
>>>
>> and for consumer rather tha
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Darren J Moffat wrote:
>> I'm not convinced that single bit flips are the common
>> failure mode for disks. Most enterprise class disks already
>> have enough ECC to correct at least 8 bytes per block.
>
> and for consumer rather than enterprise class disks ?
You are assumin
On 3/3/08, John R. Sconiers II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> New user question. In ZFS (solaris 10) are we able to "evacuate" a disk
> if I later decide to remove it from a ZFS pool. I know the answer use
> to be no but I'm not sure if that has changed or will change.
> JOHN
>
> --
> *
On 3/3/08, John R. Sconiers II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> New user question. In ZFS (solaris 10) are we able to "evacuate" a disk
> if I later decide to remove it from a ZFS pool. I know the answer use
> to be no but I'm not sure if that has changed or will change.
> JOHN
>
> --
> *
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 08:27:08AM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
> me wrote:
> >> All that said, I'm still occasionally tempted to bring it back.
> >> It may become more relevant with flash memory as a storage medium.
> >
> > How common would be single on-disk bit flips in 128K blocks?
>
> Most ent
> I'm not convinced that single bit flips are the common failure mode for disks.
I think the original suggestion might be for bad RAM more than bad disks. Just
about every home computer does not have ECC RAM, so as ZFS transitions from
enterprise to home, this (optional) feature sounds very wor
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Jeff Bonwick wrote:
>
>> All that said, I'm still occasionally tempted to bring it back.
>> It may become more relevant with flash memory as a storage medium.
>>
>
> Would it be worth considering bring it back as part of zdb rather than
> part of the core zio layer
Richard Elling wrote:
> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>> Jeff Bonwick wrote:
>>
>>> All that said, I'm still occasionally tempted to bring it back.
>>> It may become more relevant with flash memory as a storage medium.
>>>
>> Would it be worth considering bring it back as part of zdb rather than
Hi,
New user question. In ZFS (solaris 10) are we able to "evacuate" a disk
if I later decide to remove it from a ZFS pool. I know the answer use
to be no but I'm not sure if that has changed or will change.
JOHN
--
*
John R. Sconiers II
me wrote:
>> All that said, I'm still occasionally tempted to bring it back.
>> It may become more relevant with flash memory as a storage medium.
>>
>
> How common would be single on-disk bit flips in 128K blocks? Disk
> manufacturers quantized it as a 1 to 10 to the power of god knows what,
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, me wrote:
> I'm sure people using no redundancy (e.g. future OSX users) would
> appreciate it, saving some grief if the bad blocks are indeed just
> single bit flips.
In case people have somehow forgotten, most other filesystems in
common use do not checksum data blocks. I
Le 3 mars 08 à 09:58, Robert Milkowski a écrit :
> Hello zfs-discuss,
>
>
> I had a zfs file system with recordsize=8k and a couple of large
> files. While doing zfs send | zfs recv I noticed it's doing
> about 1500 IOPS but with block size 8K so total throughput
> wasn't impr
> All that said, I'm still occasionally tempted to bring it back.
> It may become more relevant with flash memory as a storage medium.
How common would be single on-disk bit flips in 128K blocks? Disk
manufacturers quantized it as a 1 to 10 to the power of god knows what,
which practically means
Jeff Bonwick wrote:
> All that said, I'm still occasionally tempted to bring it back.
> It may become more relevant with flash memory as a storage medium.
Would it be worth considering bring it back as part of zdb rather than
part of the core zio layer ?
--
Darren J Moffat
_
Hello zfs-discuss,
I had a zfs file system with recordsize=8k and a couple of large
files. While doing zfs send | zfs recv I noticed it's doing
about 1500 IOPS but with block size 8K so total throughput
wasn't impressive.
So I stopped it and tried to cp files from a
25 matches
Mail list logo
