On Jul 25, 2009, at 15:32, Frank Middleton wrote:
Can you comment on if/how mirroring or raidz mitigates this, or tree
corruption in general? I have yet to lose a pool even on a machine
with fairly pathological problems, but it is mirrored (and copies=2).
Presumably at least on of the drives i
On Jul 25, 2009, at 16:30, Carson Gaspar wrote:
Frank Middleton wrote:
Doesn't this mean /any/ hardware might have this problem, albeit
with much lower probability?
No. You'll lose unwritten data, but won't corrupt the pool, because
the on-disk state will be sane, as long as your iSCSI s
Hello all,
Somebody using iSCSI cache enable on 7000 series? I'm talking about
OpenSolaris (ZFS) as an iSCSI initiator, because i don't know another
filesystem that handles disk caches.
So, that option was created for ZFS ;-)?
Any suggestions on this?
Thanks
Leal
[ http://www.eall.com.br/
Hi Folks,
I have a small problem. I've disappeared about 5.9TB of data.
My host system was (well, still is) connected to this storage via iSCSI and
MPXIO, doing round robin of a pair of GigE ports. I'd like to make a quick
excuse before we begin here.
I was originally doing raidz2 (there are
On 25-Jul-09, at 3:32 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 07/25/09 02:50 PM, David Magda wrote:
Yes, it can be affected. If the snapshot's data structure / record is
underneath the corrupted data in the tree then it won't be able to be
reached.
Can you comment on if/how mirroring or raidz mitigat
dick hoogendijk nagual.nl> writes:
>
> I live in Holland and it is not easy to find motherboards that (a)
> truly support ECC ram and (b) are (Open)Solaris compatible.
Virtually all motherboards for AMD processors support ECC RAM because the
memory controller is in the CPU and all AMD CPUs supp
Axelle Apvrille wrote:
Hi,
I'm pretty sure this is a beginner's question. The output of my zfs list is
shown below. I don't understand how two ZFS file systems (opensolaris and
opensolaris-1) can be mounted on the same mountpoint. [Hint: they correspond to
different BEs].
They may have the
Michael McCandless wrote:
Thanks for the numerous responses everyone! Responding to some of the
answers...:
ZFS has to trust the storage to have committed the data it
claims to have committed in the same way it has to trust the integrity
of the RAM it uses for checksummed data.
I ho
Frank Middleton wrote:
Finally, a number of posters blamed VB for ignoring a flush, but
according to the evil tuning guide, without any application syncs,
ZFS may wait up to 5 seconds before issuing a synch, and there
must be all kinds of failure modes even on bare hardware where
it never gets a
Hi,
I'm pretty sure this is a beginner's question. The output of my zfs list is
shown below. I don't understand how two ZFS file systems (opensolaris and
opensolaris-1) can be mounted on the same mountpoint. [Hint: they correspond to
different BEs].
And as I probably should erase one of them (th
On 07/25/09 02:50 PM, David Magda wrote:
Yes, it can be affected. If the snapshot's data structure / record is
underneath the corrupted data in the tree then it won't be able to be
reached.
Can you comment on if/how mirroring or raidz mitigates this, or tree
corruption in general? I have yet t
On Jul 25, 2009, at 14:17, roland wrote:
thanks for the explanation !
one more question:
there are situations where the disks doing strange things
(like lying) have caused the ZFS data structures to become wonky. The
'broken' data structure will cause all branches underneath it to be
lost--a
thanks for the explanation !
one more question:
> there are situations where the disks doing strange things
>(like lying) have caused the ZFS data structures to become wonky. The
>'broken' data structure will cause all branches underneath it to be
>lost--and if it's near the top of the tree, it c
On Jul 25, 2009, at 12:24, roland wrote:
why can i loose a whole 10TB pool including all the snapshots with
the logging/transactional nature of zfs?
Because ZFS does not (yet) have an (easy) way to go back a previous
state. That's what this bug is about:
need a way to rollback to an uber
# zfs create store/snaps
# zfs set sharenfs='rw=arwen,root=arwen' store/snaps
# share
-...@store/snaps /store/snaps sec=sys,rw=arwen,root=arwen ""
arwen# zfs send -Rv rp...@0906 > /net/westmark/store/snaps/rpool.0906
zsh: permission denied: /net/westmark/store/snaps/rpool.0906
*** BOTH sy
>As soon as you have more then one disk in the equation, then it is
>vital that the disks commit their data when requested since otherwise
>the data on disk will not be in a consistent state.
ok, but doesn`t that refer only to the most recent data?
why can i loose a whole 10TB pool including all t
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, roland wrote:
When that happens, ZFS believes the data is safely written, but a
power cut or >crash can cause severe problems with the pool.
didn`t i read a million times that zfs ensures an "always consistent
state" and is self healing, too?
so, if new blocks are alwa
Thanks for the numerous responses everyone! Responding to some of the
answers...:
> ZFS has to trust the storage to have committed the data it
> claims to have committed in the same way it has to trust the integrity
> of the RAM it uses for checksummed data.
I hope that's not true.
Ie, I can
>Running this kind of setup absolutely can give you NO garanties at all.
>Virtualisation, OSOL/zfs on WinXP. It's nice to play with and see it
>"working" but would I TRUST precious data to it? No way!
why not?
if i write some data trough virtualization layer which goes straight trough to
raw disk
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Tristan Ball wrote:
I've used 8K IO sizes for all the stage one tests - I know I might get
it to go faster with a larger size, but I like to know how well systems
will do when I treat them badly!
The Stage_1_Ops_thru_run is interesting. 2000+ ops/s
The 128G Supertalent Ultradrive ME. The larger version of the drive
mentioned in the original post. Sorry, should have made that a little
clearer. :-)
T
Kyle McDonald wrote:
Tristan Ball wrote:
It just so happens I have one of the 128G and two of the 32G versions in
my drawer, waiting to go
Richard Elling wrote:
That is because you had only one other choice: filesystem level copy.
With ZFS I believe you will find that snapshots will allow you to have
better control over this. The send/receive process is very, very similar
to a mirror resilver, so you are only carrying your previous
22 matches
Mail list logo
