Vanja gmail.com> writes:
>
> And finally, if this is the case, is it possible to make an array with
> 3 drives, and then add the mirror later?
I assume you are asking if it is possible to create a temporary 3-way raidz,
then transfer your data to it, then convert it to a 4-way raidz ? No it is
Steve schrieb:
> If you're really crazy for miniaturization check out this:
> http://www.elma.it/ElmaFrame.htm
>
> Is a 4 hot swappable case for 2.5" drives that fits in 1 slot for 5.25!
>
>
Maybe only true for Notebook 2,5" drives. Altough I haven't check I
don't think that 2,5" SAS disk with
I rebooted both systems and now it's working!
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Yeah but 2.5" aren't that big yet. What, they max out ~ 320 gig right?
I want 1tb+ disks :)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I'm testing out ZFS and AVS on two 64-bit snv86 systems that are
running as guests under VMWare Fusion.
I made up a zfs-pool on the primary on disks configured for AVS:
NAME SIZE USED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT
zfs-pool 15.6G 1.03G 14.6G 6% ONLINE -
And AVS seems to be work
If you're really crazy for miniaturization check out this:
http://www.elma.it/ElmaFrame.htm
Is a 4 hot swappable case for 2.5" drives that fits in 1 slot for 5.25!
You'll get low power consumption (= low heating) and will be easier to find a
mini itx case that fit just this and mobo! ;-)
Th
Hello Rob,
Sunday, July 20, 2008, 12:11:56 PM, you wrote:
>> Robert Milkowski wrote:
>> During christmass I managed to add my own compression to zfs - it as quite
>> easy.
RC> Great to see innovation but unless your personal compression
RC> method is somehow better (very fast with excellent
R
Hello Richard,
Thursday, July 3, 2008, 8:06:56 PM, you wrote:
RE> Albert Chin wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:43:36PM +0300, Mertol Ozyoney wrote:
>>
>>> You are right that J series do not have nvram onboard. However most Jbods
>>> like HPS's MSA series have some nvram.
>>> The idea behi
From a reporting perspective, yes, zpool status should not hang, and
should report an error if a drive goes away, or is in any way behaving
badly. No arguments there. From the data integrity perspective, the
only event zfs needs to know about is when a bad drive is replaced, such
that a re
Thomas Nau wrote:
> Dear all.
> I stumbled over an issue triggered by Samba while accessing ZFS snapshots.
> As soon as a Windows client tries to open the .zfs/snapshot folder it
> issues the Microsoft equivalent of "ls dir", "dir *". It get's translates
> by Samba all the way down into stat64("
Thank you for the feedback
Justin
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Peter Cudhea wrote:
> Thanks, this is helpful. I was definitely misunderstanding the part that
> the ZIL plays in ZFS.
>
> I found Richard Elling's discussion of the FMA response to the failure
> very informative. I see how the device driver, the fault analysis
> layer and the ZFS layer are all w
Justin Vassallo wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> The version on stable Solaris is v4 at best today. I definitely do not want
> to go away from stable Solaris for my production environment, not least
> because I want to continue my Solaris support contracts.
>
Don't confuse the ZFS on-disk format versio
If I have 2 raidz's, 5x400G and a later added 5x1T, should I expect
that streaming writes would go primarily to only 1 of the raidz sets?
Or is this some side effect of my non-ideal hardware setup? I thought
that adding additional capacity to a pool automatically would then
balance writes to both
Hi Richard,
The version on stable Solaris is v4 at best today. I definitely do not want
to go away from stable Solaris for my production environment, not least
because I want to continue my Solaris support contracts.
I will be attaching a Sun 2540FC array to these servers in the coming weeks
and
Justin Vassallo wrote:
> All 3 boxes I had disk failures on are SunFire x4200 M2 running
>
> Solaris 10 11/06 s10x_u3wos_10 X86 w the zfs it comes with, ie v3
>
That version of ZFS is nearly 3 years old... has it been patched at all?
Even if it has been patched, its fault handling capabilities
All 3 boxes I had disk failures on are SunFire x4200 M2 running
Solaris 10 11/06 s10x_u3wos_10 X86 w the zfs it comes with, ie v3
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail
Thanks, this is helpful. I was definitely misunderstanding the part that
the ZIL plays in ZFS.
I found Richard Elling's discussion of the FMA response to the failure
very informative. I see how the device driver, the fault analysis
layer and the ZFS layer are all working together.Though the
Thomas Nau wrote:
> Dear all.
> I stumbled over an issue triggered by Samba while accessing ZFS snapshots.
> As soon as a Windows client tries to open the .zfs/snapshot folder it
> issues the Microsoft equivalent of "ls dir", "dir *". It get's translates
> by Samba all the way down into stat64("
G'Day,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 01:24:22PM -0400, Alastair Neil wrote:
>
>Thanks very much that's exactly what I needed to hear :)
>On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Richard Elling
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Alastair Neil wrote:
>
> I've been reading about the work using
Dear all.
I stumbled over an issue triggered by Samba while accessing ZFS snapshots.
As soon as a Windows client tries to open the .zfs/snapshot folder it
issues the Microsoft equivalent of "ls dir", "dir *". It get's translates
by Samba all the way down into stat64("/pool/.zfs/snapshot"*"). The
Peter Cudhea wrote:
> Your point is well taken that ZFS should not duplicate functionality
> that is already or should be available at the device driver level.In
> this case, I think it misses the point of what ZFS should be doing that
> it is not.
>
> ZFS does its own periodic commits to
Richard Elling wrote:
> I was able to reproduce this in b93, but might have a different
> interpretation of the conditions. More below...
>
> Ross Smith wrote:
>
>> A little more information today. I had a feeling that ZFS would
>> continue quite some time before giving an error, and today I'v
I was able to reproduce this in b93, but might have a different
interpretation of the conditions. More below...
Ross Smith wrote:
> A little more information today. I had a feeling that ZFS would
> continue quite some time before giving an error, and today I've shown
> that you can carry on wo
Thanks very much that's exactly what I needed to hear :)
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Alastair Neil wrote:
>
>> I've been reading about the work using flash SSD devices for ZIL and cache
>> devices. I was wondering if anyone knows what releases of
Alastair Neil wrote:
> I've been reading about the work using flash SSD devices for ZIL and
> cache devices. I was wondering if anyone knows what releases of
> Opensolaris and Solaris these features are available on? The
> performance inporvements are pretty dramatic.
You can keep track of so
Which OS release/version?
-- richard
Justin Vassallo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I’ve had 3 zfs file systems hang completely when one of the drives in
> their pool fails. This has happened on both USB as well as internal
> SAS drives. In /var/adm/messages, I’d get this kind of msg:
>
> Jul 29 13:45:24 ze
I've been reading about the work using flash SSD devices for ZIL and cache
devices. I was wondering if anyone knows what releases of Opensolaris and
Solaris these features are available on? The performance inporvements are
pretty dramatic.
Alastair
___
>This means you can convert a non-redundant load-shared configuration into a
redundant
>load-shared configuration.
Bob,
Does that imply that when you add zfs automatically load-balances across its
mirrors?
Does that also mean that when the drives in a mirror are not as fast as each
other, the fs
Your point is well taken that ZFS should not duplicate functionality
that is already or should be available at the device driver level.In
this case, I think it misses the point of what ZFS should be doing that
it is not.
ZFS does its own periodic commits to the disk, and it knows if those
Sorry I meant "add the parity drive".
I've got too much data to keep secondary backups, for now.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discus
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Ross Smith wrote:
>
> I'm not saying that ZFS should be monitoring disks and drivers to
> ensure they are working, just that if ZFS attempts to write data and
> doesn't get the response it's expecting, an error should be logged
> against the device regardless of what the dri
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 07:24, Vanja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just wondering what would happen in a raidz array if one of the drives
> failed? I imagine everything would work fine for reading, but will I be able
> to write to the array still?
Yes.
> If I can write, does that mean that
I accidentally ran 'zpool create -f' on the wrong drive. The previously zfs
formatted and populated drive now appears blank. The operation was too quick to
have formatted the drive so it must just be the indexes/TOC that are lost.
I have not touched the newly created filesystem at all and the dr
I agree that device drivers should perform the bulk of the fault monitoring,
however I disagree that this absolves ZFS of any responsibility for checking
for errors. The primary goal of ZFS is to be a filesystem and maintain data
integrity, and that entails both reading and writing data to the
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Vanja wrote:
>
> And finally, if this is the case, is it possible to make an array
> with 3 drives, and then add the mirror later? I imagine this is
> extremely similar to the previous situation.
One of the joys of using mirrors is that you can add a mirror device,
and you
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Ross wrote:
>
> Imagine you had a raid-z array and pulled a drive as I'm doing here.
> Because ZFS isn't aware of the removal it keeps writing to that
> drive as if it's valid. That means ZFS still believes the array is
> online when in fact it should be degrated. If any o
Just checking, are you planning to have the receiving ZFS system read only?
I'm not sure how ZFS receive works on a system if changes have been made, but I
would expect they would be overwritten.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-dis
Are you running the Solaris CIFS Server by any chance?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Hi,
I've had 3 zfs file systems hang completely when one of the drives in their
pool fails. This has happened on both USB as well as internal SAS drives. In
/var/adm/messages, I'd get this kind of msg:
Jul 29 13:45:24 zen SCSI transport failed: reason 'timeout': retrying
command
Jul 29
>It depends: if you like to be able to restore single files, zfs send/recv
would
>not be apropriate.
Why not?
With zfs you can easily view any file/dir from a snapshot (via the .zfs
dir). You can also copy that instance of the file into your running fs with
cp.
justin
smime.p7s
Description: S
I'm considering making a zfs raid with slices until I can get the right hard
drive configuration to use full drives. What kind of performance difference is
there? Will it be just a bigger hit on cpu, or will it be a big hit because zfs
can no longer do any command queueing?
This message post
Hey Nils & everyone
Finally getting around to answering Nil's mail properly - only a month
late! I thought I'd also let everyone else know what's been going on
with the service, since 0.10 released in January this year.
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 14:40 -0700, Nils Goroll wrote:
> first of all: Tim,
I was just wondering what would happen in a raidz array if one of the drives
failed? I imagine everything would work fine for reading, but will I be able to
write to the array still?
If I can write, does that mean that replacing the dead drive with a working one
will catch up the new drive? I t
eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Best Backup Script That Doesn't Do Backups, but I can't find it. In
> > essence, it just created a list of what changed since the last
> > backup and allowed you to use tar/cpio/cp - whatever to do the backup.
>
> I think zfs send/recv would be a gre
"Chris Cosby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If they are truly limited, something like an rsync or similar. There was a
> script being thrown around a while back that was touted as the Best Backup
> Script That Doesn't Do Backups, but I can't find it. In essence, it just
> created a list of what cha
Hello Sam,
Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 3:23:55 AM, you wrote:
S> I've had my 10x500 ZFS+ running for probably 6 months now and had
S> thought it was scrubbing occasionally (wrong) so I started a scrub
S> this morning, its almost done now and I got this:
S> errors: No known data errors
S> # zpool s
Hello Peter,
Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 9:19:30 AM, you wrote:
PT> A question regarding zfs_nocacheflush:
PT> The Evil Tuning Guide says to only enable this if every device is
PT> protected by NVRAM.
PT> However, is it safe to enable zfs_nocacheflush when I also have
PT> local drives (the intern
Hello Bob,
Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 3:07:05 AM, you wrote:
BF> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>>
>> Both cases are basically the same.
>> Please notice I'm not talking about disabling ZIL, I'm talking about
>> disabling cache flushes in ZFS. ZFS will still wait for the array to
>>
> waynel wrote:
> >
> > We have a couple of machines similar to your just
> > spec'ed. They have worked great. The only
> problem
> > is, the power management routine only works for
> K10
> > and later. We will move to Intel core 2 duo for
> > future machines (mainly b/c power management
> > co
A question regarding zfs_nocacheflush:
The Evil Tuning Guide says to only enable this if every device is
protected by NVRAM.
However, is it safe to enable zfs_nocacheflush when I also have
local drives (the internal system drives) using ZFS, in particular if
the write cache is disabled on those d
Well yeah, this is obviously not a valid setup for my data, but if you read my
first e-mail, the whole point of this test was that I had seen Solaris hang
when a drive was removed from a fully redundant array (five sets of three way
mirrors), and wanted to see what was going on.
So I started wi
52 matches
Mail list logo
