> "re" == Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
re> I really don't know how to please you.
dd from the raw device instead of through ZFS would be better. If you
could show that you can write data to a sector, and read back
different data, without getting an error, over and over, I'd
Richard Elling writes:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> Richard Elling writes:
>>>
>>> I think the proposed timeouts here are too short, but the idea has
>>> merit. Note that such a preemptive read will have negative performance
>>> impacts for high-workload systems, so it will not be a given that peopl
Ah yes - that video is what got this whole thing going in the first place... I
referenced it in one of my other posts much earlier. Heh... there's something
gruesomely entertaining about brutishly taking a drill or sledge hammer to a
piece of precision hardware like that.
But yes, that's the ki
Ian Collins wrote:
> Richard Elling writes:
>>
>> I think the proposed timeouts here are too short, but the idea has
>> merit. Note that such a preemptive read will have negative performance
>> impacts for high-workload systems, so it will not be a given that people
>> will want this enabled by de
Richard Elling writes:
>
> I think the proposed timeouts here are too short, but the idea has
> merit. Note that such a preemptive read will have negative performance
> impacts for high-workload systems, so it will not be a given that people
> will want this enabled by default. Designing such a
Miles Nordin wrote:
>> "re" == Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>
> >> If you really mean there are devices out there which never
> >> return error codes, and always silently return bad data, please
> >> tell us which one and the story of when you encou
Toby Thain writes:
>
> On 27-Aug-08, at 7:21 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>
>> Miles Nordin writes:
>>
>>>
>>> In addition, I'm repeating myself like crazy at this point, but ZFS
>>> tools used for all pools like 'zpool status' need to not freeze when a
>>> single pool, or single device within a
> "t" == Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
t> Except he was, and is referring to a non-root disk.
wait, what? his root disk isn't plugged into the pci-ide controller?
t> LVM hardly changes the way devices move around in Linux,
fine, be pedantic. It makes systems boot and mount al
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Let's not be too quick to assign blame, or to think that perfecting
> the behaviour is straightforward or even possible.
>
> Traditionally, systems bearing 'enterprisey' expectations were/are
> integrated hardware and soft
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Miles Nordin wrote:
>
> In some sense the disk drivers and ZFS have different goals. The goal
> of drivers should be to keep marginal disk/cabling/... subsystems
> online as aggressively as possible, while the goal of ZFS should be to
> notice and work around slightly-failing
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Miles Nordin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "t" == Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> t> Solaris does not do this.
>
> yeah but the locators for local disks are still based on
> pci/controller/channel not devid, so the disk will move to a different
> devi
On 27-Aug-08, at 7:21 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> Miles Nordin writes:
>
>>
>> In addition, I'm repeating myself like crazy at this point, but ZFS
>> tools used for all pools like 'zpool status' need to not freeze
>> when a
>> single pool, or single device within a pool, is unavailable or slow,
>>
> "t" == Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
t> Solaris does not do this.
yeah but the locators for local disks are still based on
pci/controller/channel not devid, so the disk will move to a different
device name if he changes BIOS from pci-ide to AHCI because it changes
the driver attachm
Miles Nordin writes:
>
> In addition, I'm repeating myself like crazy at this point, but ZFS
> tools used for all pools like 'zpool status' need to not freeze when a
> single pool, or single device within a pool, is unavailable or slow,
> and this expectation is having nothing to do with failmod
On 27-Aug-08, at 5:47 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> Tim writes:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any tuning tips for a Subversion repository on
>>> ZFS? The
>>> repository will mainly be storing binary (MS Office documents
> "re" == Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If you really mean there are devices out there which never
>> return error codes, and always silently return bad data, please
>> tell us which one and the story of when you encountered it,
re> I blogged about one such cas
Tim writes:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Does anyone have any tuning tips for a Subversion repository on ZFS? The
>> repository will mainly be storing binary (MS Office documents).
>>
>> It looks like a vanilla, uncompressed file system is
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any tuning tips for a Subversion repository on ZFS? The
> repository will mainly be storing binary (MS Office documents).
>
> It looks like a vanilla, uncompressed file system is the best bet.
>
> Ian
> _
Does anyone have any tuning tips for a Subversion repository on ZFS? The
repository will mainly be storing binary (MS Office documents).
It looks like a vanilla, uncompressed file system is the best bet.
Ian
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discus
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Kenny wrote:
>
> Thanks... Yes I did reserve one for Hot spare on the hardware
> side Guess I can change that thinking.
Disks in the 2540 are expensive. The hot spare does not need to be in
the 2540. You also use a suitably large disk (1TB) installed in your
serve
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Kenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tcook - Sorry bout that...
>
> Solaris 10 (8/07 I think)
> ZFS version 4
>
> How can I upgrade ZFS w/o having to rebuild with Sol 10 5/08?
>
> Thanks --Kenny
>
>
Please paste the output of df, zpool status, and format so we can
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Kenny wrote:
> Tcook - Sorry bout that...
>
> Solaris 10 (8/07 I think)
> ZFS version 4
>
> How can I upgrade ZFS w/o having to rebuild with Sol 10 5/08?
You can use 'smpatch' to apply patches to your system so that
kernel/zfs wise it is essentially Sol 10 5/08. However, I
Kenny wrote:
> Arron,
>
> Thanks... Yes I did reserve one for Hot spare on the hardware side
> Guess I can change that thinking.
>
> Solaris 10 8/07 is my OS.
>
> This storage is to become our syslog repository for approx 20 servers. We
> have approx 3TB of data now and wanted space to g
Claus, Thanks for the sanity check... I thought I wasn't crazy Now on to
find out why my 9TB turned into 9GB...
Thanks again
--Kenny
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://m
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Lori Alt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cyril Plisko wrote:
>
> The main problem is that this configuration of datasets didn't work:
>
> /ROOT/mounpoint=/
> /ROOT//zones mountpoint=/zones
> /ROOT//zones/zoneroot1 mountpoint=/zones/zoneroot1
> /
Arron,
Thanks... Yes I did reserve one for Hot spare on the hardware side Guess
I can change that thinking.
Solaris 10 8/07 is my OS.
This storage is to become our syslog repository for approx 20 servers. We have
approx 3TB of data now and wanted space to grow and keep more online for
Cyril Plisko wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Lori Alt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
mike wrote:
On 8/26/08, Cyril Plisko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
that's very interesting ! Can you share more info on what these
bugs/issues are ? Since it is LU related I guess we'll never see these
Claus - Thanks!! At least I know I'm not going crazy!!
Yes, I've got 11 metric 1 TB disks and would like 10TB useable (end game...)
--Kenny
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mai
Tcook - Sorry bout that...
Solaris 10 (8/07 I think)
ZFS version 4
How can I upgrade ZFS w/o having to rebuild with Sol 10 5/08?
Thanks --Kenny
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Forgive me for being a bit wooly with this explanation (I've only recently
> moved over from Windows), but changing disk mode from IDE to SATA may well
> not work without a re-install, or at the very least messing around with boot
> Has anyone had issues with creating ZFS pools greater than 1 terabyte (TB)?
>
> I've created 11 LUNs from a Sun 2540 Disk array (approx 1 TB each). The host
> system ( SUN Enterprise 5220) reconizes the "disks" as each having 931GB
> space. So that should be 10+ TB in size total. However whe
Couple of questions,
What version of Solaris are you using? (cat /etc/release)
If you're exposing each disk individually through a LUN/2540 Volume, you
don't really gain anything by having a spare on the 2540 (which I assume
you're doing by only exposing 11 LUNs instead of 12). Your best bet is to
Forgive me for being a bit wooly with this explanation (I've only recently
moved over from Windows), but changing disk mode from IDE to SATA may well not
work without a re-install, or at the very least messing around with boot
settings. I've seen many systems which list SATA disks in front of I
> "vk" == Vikas Kakkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
vk> Actually customer wants to reduce the pool size, I guess we
vk> cannot do this todaythere is a pending RFP on this.
RFE 4852783 is decreasing.
There was maybe some recent activity about INcreasing a pool size
which you can do
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Steven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On openSolaris I have a ZFS zpool vol that is a CIFS share on my network.
> Can I make this same shared-data an iSCSI target also?
>
> The reason I want to do this is that my VirtualBox VM's are about 10x
> slower in accessing th
Miles Nordin wrote:
>> "re" == Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>
> re> not all devices return error codes which indicate
> re> unrecoverable reads.
>
> What you mean is, ``devices sometimes return bad data instead of an
> error code.''
>
> If you really me
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Kenny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone had issues with creating ZFS pools greater than 1 terabyte (TB)?
>
> I've created 11 LUNs from a Sun 2540 Disk array (approx 1 TB each). The
> host system ( SUN Enterprise 5220) reconizes the "disks" as each having
> 9
> "thp" == Todd H Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Would try this with
>> your pci/pci-e cards in this system? I think not.
thp> Unplugging one of them seems like a fine test to me
I've done it, with 32-bit 5 volt PCI, I forget why. I might have been
trying to use a board, bu
Has anyone had issues with creating ZFS pools greater than 1 terabyte (TB)?
I've created 11 LUNs from a Sun 2540 Disk array (approx 1 TB each). The host
system ( SUN Enterprise 5220) reconizes the "disks" as each having 931GB space.
So that should be 10+ TB in size total. However when I zpool
On Aug 27, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
In my pile of broken parts, I have devices
> which fail to indicate an unrecoverable read, yet do indeed suffer
> from forgetful media.
A long time ago, in a hw company long since dead and buried, I spent
some months trying to find an i
> "m" == MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
m> file another bug about how solaris recognizes your ACHI SATA
m> hardware as old ide hardware.
I don't have that board but AIUI the driver attachment's chooseable in
the BIOS Blue Screen of Setup, by setting the controller to
``Compatibilit
On openSolaris I have a ZFS zpool vol that is a CIFS share on my network. Can I
make this same shared-data an iSCSI target also?
The reason I want to do this is that my VirtualBox VM's are about 10x slower in
accessing the network-share than any other machine on the network. This
prevents me fr
> "re" == Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
re> not all devices return error codes which indicate
re> unrecoverable reads.
What you mean is, ``devices sometimes return bad data instead of an
error code.''
If you really mean there are devices out there which never return
erro
On 27-Aug-08, at 1:41 PM, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
>> Please read Akhilesh's answer carefully and stop
>> repeating
>> the same thing. Staroffice is to Latex/Framemaker
>> what a
>> mid-size sedan is to an 18-wheeler. To the untrained
>> eye,
>> they appear to perform similar actions, but the
>> a
> I don't doubt the superiority of LaTex/Framemaker in
> conjunction with Distiller in producing (the pdf
> versions of) nicely typeset books and brochures. But
> how good is a tool if it produces a product that its
> intended users can NOT read? This is what prompted
>
You seem to have missed
Mattias Pantzare wrote:
> 2008/8/27 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Either the drives should be loaded with special firmware that
> returns errors earlier, or the software LVM should read redundant data
> and collect the statistic if the drive is well outside its usual
>
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:41, W. Wayne Liauh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't doubt the superiority of LaTex/Framemaker in conjunction with
> Distiller in producing nicely typeset books and brochures. But how good is a
> tool if it produces a product that its intended users can NOT read? T
Todd H. Poole wrote:
> And I want this test to be as rough as it gets. I don't want to play
> nice with this system... I want to drag it through the most tortuous
> worst-case scenario tests I can imagine, and if it survives with all
> my test data intact, then (and only then) will I begin to tr
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 1:18 AM, MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, so your ACHI hardware is not using an ACHI driver in solaris. A
> crash when pulling a cable is still not great, but it is understandable
> because that driver is old and bad and doesn't support hot swapping at all.
>
His AHC
> Please read Akhilesh's answer carefully and stop
> repeating
> the same thing. Staroffice is to Latex/Framemaker
> what a
> mid-size sedan is to an 18-wheeler. To the untrained
> eye,
> they appear to perform similar actions, but the
> actual overlap
> is really small.
>
> > Sorry, can't help
>
>
> By the way: Is there a way to pull up a text-only interface from the log in
> screen (or during the boot process?) without having to log in (or just sit
> there reading about "SunOS Release 5.11 Version snv_86 64-bit")? It would be
> nice if I could see a bit more information during boot, or
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Lori Alt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mike wrote:
>
> On 8/26/08, Cyril Plisko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> that's very interesting ! Can you share more info on what these
> bugs/issues are ? Since it is LU related I guess we'll never see these
> via opensola
Hi Todd,
Having finally gotten the time to read through this entire thread, I think Ralf
said it best. ZFS can provide data integrity, but you're reliant on hardware
and drivers for data availability.
In this case either your SATA controller, or the drivers for it don't cope at
all well with
mike wrote:
On 8/26/08, Cyril Plisko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
that's very interesting ! Can you share more info on what these
bugs/issues are ? Since it is LU related I guess we'll never see these
via opensolaris.org, right ? So I would appreciate if community will
be updated when these f
I plan on fiddling around with this failmode property in a few hours. I'll be
using http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-2271/gftgp?l=en&a=view as a
reference.
I'll let you know what I find out.
-Todd
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
z
A little update on the subject.
After great help of Victor Latushkin the content of the pools is recovered.
The cause of the problem is still under investigation, but what is clear that
both config objects where corrupted.
What has been done to recover data:
Victor has a zfs module which allows
> As a follow up to the whole story, with the fantastic
> help of Victor,
> the failed pool is now imported and functional thanks
> to the redundancy
> in the meta data.
It would be really useful if you could publish the steps to recover the pools.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:18:51PM -0700, MC wrote:
> The two bonus things to do are: come to the forum and bitch about the bugs to
> give them some attention, and come to the forum asking for help on making
> solaris recognize your ACHI SATA hardware properly :)
Been there, done that. No t-shi
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 12:06:13AM -0700, W. Wayne Liauh wrote:
> > It takes significant amount of work to typeset any
> > large document. Especially if it is a technical
> > document in which you have to adhere to a set of
> > strict typesetting guidelines. In these cases
> > separation of content
Hi Vikas,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 03:38:27PM +0530, Vikas Kakkar wrote:
> Thanks for your email Sanjeev!!
>
> Actually customer wants to reduce the pool size, I guess we cannot do this
> todaythere is a pending RFP on this.
You are right. I got confused because, you were refering to a files
That sounds absolutely perfect Tim, thanks.
Yes, we'll be sending these to other zfs filesystems, although I haven't looked
at the send/receive part of your service yet. What I'd like to do is stage the
send/receive as files on an external disk, and then receive them remotely from
that. I'v
On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 03:53 -0700, Ross wrote:
> We're looking at autohome folders for windows users over CIFS, but I'm
> wondering how that is going to affect our backup strategy. I was
> hoping to be able to use your automatic snapshot service on these
> servers, do you know how that service wou
Hey Tim,
Could I ask for your input on this thread in the CIFS forum?
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=273586
We're looking at autohome folders for windows users over CIFS, but I'm
wondering how that is going to affect our backup strategy. I was hoping to be
able to use y
Thank you all for answering these questions!!
Regards
Vikas
Boyd Adamson wrote:
Vikas Kakkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[..]
Would you know if ZFS is supported for Sun Cluster?
ZFS is supported as a failover filesystem in SunCluster 3.2. There is no
support for ZFS as a global
2008/8/27 Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
Either the drives should be loaded with special firmware that
returns errors earlier, or the software LVM should read redundant data
and collect the statistic if the drive is well outside its usual
response latency.
>>>
>>> ZF
Vikas Kakkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[..]
> Would you know if ZFS is supported for Sun Cluster?
>
ZFS is supported as a failover filesystem in SunCluster 3.2. There is no
support for ZFS as a global filesystem.
HTH,
Boyd
___
zfs-discuss mailing lis
I might have found an even bigger problem.
It appears that the pool wasn't even mounted correctly. My 'rc-pool' must have
crashed in the past, leaving the mountpoint /rc-pool behind.
On reboot the pool hadn't mounted because the /rc-pool folder was already
there, and it appears that is why the
Tomas,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:57:09AM +0200, Tomas ?gren wrote:
> On 27 August, 2008 - Sanjeev sent me these 1,1K bytes:
>
> > Vikas,
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 01:29:49PM +0530, Vikas Kakkar wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Please help answering the following queries:
> > >
> > >
Thanks for your email Sanjeev!!
Actually customer wants to reduce the pool size, I guess we cannot do
this todaythere is a pending RFP on this.
Would you know if ZFS is supported for Sun Cluster?
Regards
Vikas
Sanjeev wrote:
Vikas,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 01:29:49PM +0530, Vikas K
Ive upgraded the pool, because CIFS required that, if I remember correctly.
I wondered if it was possible to use b80 and upgrade only ZFS. If that is not
possible I am considering to change my computer hardware. I have to think about
this. To bad of the regressions for bleading edge hardware tho
On 27 August, 2008 - Sanjeev sent me these 1,1K bytes:
> Vikas,
>
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 01:29:49PM +0530, Vikas Kakkar wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please help answering the following queries:
> >
> > 1. Can we reduce the size of a file system if we use ZFS?
>
> The size of the filesystem i
> What Widows utility you are talking about? I have
> used the Sandisk utility program to remove the U3
> Launchpad (which creates a permanent hsfs partition
> in the flash disk), but it does not help the problem.
That's the problem, most usb sticks don't require any
special software and just wor
Vikas,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 01:29:49PM +0530, Vikas Kakkar wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please help answering the following queries:
>
> 1. Can we reduce the size of a file system if we use ZFS?
The size of the filesystem is dynamic. ie. it depends on the size of the pool.
The only way to limit the s
Hi,
Please help answering the following queries:
1. Can we reduce the size of a file system if we use ZFS?
2. Can we use ZFS is the storage array is EMC DMX-4?
Thanks in Advance.
Regards
Vikas
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris
Howdy James,
While responding to halstead's post (see below), I had to restart several times
to complete some testing. I'm not sure if that's important to these commands or
not, but I just wanted to put it out there anyway.
> A few commands that you could provide the output from
> include:
>
>
> Waynel,
>
> It takes significant amount of work to typeset any
> large document. Especially if it is a technical
> document in which you have to adhere to a set of
> strict typesetting guidelines. In these cases
> separation of content and style is essential and
> can't be stressed enough.
>
>
76 matches
Mail list logo
