Rob Clark wrote:
>> On July 14, 2008 7:49:58 PM -0500 Bob Friesenhahn
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> With ZFS and modern CPUs, the parity calculation is
>>>
>> surely in the noise to the point of being unmeasurable.
>>
>> I would agree with that. The parity calculation has *neve
Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
> Evince likes to fuzz a number of PDFs. I too can't seem to nail the problems,
> but it seems that a number of PDFs from SUN have this problem (very wrong
> character spacing), and they all have been generated using FrameMaker. PDFs
> generated using TeX/LaTeX are *usu
Evince likes to fuzz a number of PDFs. I too can't seem to nail the problems,
but it seems that a number of PDFs from SUN have this problem (very wrong
character spacing), and they all have been generated using FrameMaker. PDFs
generated using TeX/LaTeX are *usually* ok.
This message posted
> On Monday 14 July 2008 08:29, Akhilesh Mritunjai
> wrote:
> > Writable snapshots are called "clones" in zfs. So
> infact, you have
> > trees of snapshots and clones. Snapshots are
> read-only, and you can
> > create any number of "writable" clones from a
> snapshot, that behave
> > like a normal
Jim Mauro wrote:
> So I'm really exposing my ignorance here, but...
>
> You wrote "/... if you wish to keep your snapshots.../"...
> I never mentioned snapshots, thus you
> introduced the use of a ZFS snapshot as a method of doing what
> I wish to do. And yes, snapshots and send are in the manual,
> ZFS Administration Guide (in PDF format) does not
> look very professional (at least on
> Evince/OS2008.05). Please see attached screenshot.
Looks like this is a display problem. It seems that certain fonts (monospace
fonts) were not displayed by the version of Evince included in OS 2008.05.
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:26:16 -0700
Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> once is accident. twice is coincidence. three times is enemy
> action :-)
I have no access to b94 yet, but as it is, it probably is better to
skip this one when it comes out then.
--
Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG k
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 10:28 -0700, Jürgen Keil wrote:
> > I ran a scrub on a root pool after upgrading to snv_94, and got checksum
> > errors:
>
> Hmm, after reading this, I started a zpool scrub on my mirrored pool,
> on a system that is running post snv_94 bits: It also found checksum errors
So I'm really exposing my ignorance here, but...
You wrote "/... if you wish to keep your snapshots.../"...
I never mentioned snapshots, thus you
introduced the use of a ZFS snapshot as a method of doing what
I wish to do. And yes, snapshots and send are in the manual, and
I read about them.
I in
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>>
>> Is there a ZFS-specific method for doing that beats the heck of out tar, etc?
>> (RTFM indicates there is not; I R'd the FM :^).
>
> Use zfs send | zfs receive if you wish to keep your snapshots or if
> you will be doing the copy several times. You
Rob Clark wrote:
>> -Peter Tribble wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> I have eight 10GB drives.
>>> ...
>>> I have 6 remaining 10 GB drives and I desire to
>>> "raid" 3 of them and "mirror" them to the other 3 to
>>> give me raid security and integrity wi
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Miles Nordin wrote:
>> "r" == Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> r> the benefit of mirroring that CF drive would be minimal.
>
> rather short-sighted. What if you want to replace the CF with a
> bigger or faster one without shutting down?
Assuming that you are usi
2008/7/20 James Mauro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is there an optimal method of making a complete copy of a ZFS, aside from the
> conventional methods (tar, cpio)?
>
> We have an existing ZFS that was not created with the optimal recordsize.
> We wish to create a new ZFS with the optimal recordsize (8k
Is there an optimal method of making a complete copy of a ZFS, aside from the
conventional methods (tar, cpio)?
We have an existing ZFS that was not created with the optimal recordsize.
We wish to create a new ZFS with the optimal recordsize (8k), and copy
all the data from the existing ZFS to th
Also http://blogs.sun.com/chrisg/entry/a_faster_zfs_snapshot_massacre which I
run every night. Lots of snapshots are not a bad thing it is keeping them for
a long time that takes space. I'm still snapping every 10 minutes and it is
great.
The thing I discovered was that I really wanted to be
> -Peter Tribble wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Rob Clark wrote:
>> I have eight 10GB drives.
>> ...
>> I have 6 remaining 10 GB drives and I desire to
>> "raid" 3 of them and "mirror" them to the other 3 to
>> give me raid security and integrity with mirrored
>> drive performance. I th
> "r" == Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
r> the benefit of mirroring that CF drive would be minimal.
rather short-sighted. What if you want to replace the CF with a
bigger or faster one without shutting down?
pgpSx47yLusSx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> "jk" == Jürgen Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jk> And a zpool scrub under snv_85 doesn't find checksum errors,
jk> either.
how about a second scrub with snv_94? are the checksum errors gone
the second time around?
I get checksum errors counted all the time when it is really just
> I got overzealous with snapshot creation. Every 5 mins is a bad idea. Way too
> many.
> What's the easiest way to delete the empty ones?
> zfs list takes FOREVER
You might enjoy reading:
ZFS snapshot massacre
http://blogs.sun.com/chrisg/entry/zfs_snapshot_massacre.
(Yes, the "." is part of th
> Robert Milkowski wrote:
> During christmass I managed to add my own compression to zfs - it as quite
> easy.
Great to see innovation but unless your personal compression method is somehow
better (very fast with excellent
compression) then would it not be a better idea to use an existing (lea
> Robert Milkowski wrote:
> During christmass I managed to add my own compression to zfs - it as quite
> easy.
Great to see innovation but unless your personal compression method is somehow
better (very fast with excellent
compression) then would it not be a better idea to use an existing (lea
On Monday 14 July 2008 08:29, Akhilesh Mritunjai wrote:
> Writable snapshots are called "clones" in zfs. So infact, you have
> trees of snapshots and clones. Snapshots are read-only, and you can
> create any number of "writable" clones from a snapshot, that behave
> like a normal filesystem and you
22 matches
Mail list logo
