On 2010-Aug-16 08:17:10 +0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>For either ZFS or BTRFS (or any other filesystem) to survive, there have
>to be sufficiently skilled developers with an interest in developing and
>maintaining it (whether the interest is commercial or recreational).
Agreed. And this applies
On 08/16/10 12:37 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
On Aug 15, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
I look after an x4500 for a client and wee keep getting drives marked as
degraded with just over 20 checksum errors.
Most of these errors appear to be driver or hardware related and thier frequency
On Aug 11, 2010, at 11:41 PM, Ramesh Babu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for the file system ownership information of ZFS file system. I
> would like to know the amount of space used and number of files owned by each
> user in ZFS file system. I could get the user space using 'ZFS userspace'
> c
On Aug 11, 2010, at 12:52 PM, Paul Kraus wrote:
> I am looking for references of folks using ZFS with either NFS
> or iSCSI as the backing store for VMware (4.x) backing store for
> virtual machines. We asked the local VMware folks and they had not
> even heard of ZFS. Part of what we are lo
On 8/14/10 10:18 PM -0700 Richard Elling wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of
OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting
and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at th
On Aug 15, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> I look after an x4500 for a client and wee keep getting drives marked as
> degraded with just over 20 checksum errors.
>
> Most of these errors appear to be driver or hardware related and thier
> frequency increases during a resilver, which can
Any code can become abandonware; where it effectively bitrots into
oblivion.
For either ZFS or BTRFS (or any other filesystem) to survive, there have
to be sufficiently skilled developers with an interest in developing and
maintaining it (whether the interest is commercial or recreational).
Hones
I'd recommend typical end-users not interested in purchasing equipment
from Oracle consider Nexenta's product line for storage serving.
I can tell you that we offer real support, and we have the latest code
base with the most tightly integrated kernel other than Oracle's
product. (And in many cas
On Aug 11, 2010, at 9:46 PM, Ville Ojamo wrote:
> I am having a similar issue at the moment.. 3 GB RAM under ESXi, but dedup
> for this zvol (1.2 T) was turned off and only 300 G was used. The pool does
> contain other datasets with dedup turned on but are small enough so I'm not
> hitting the
I look after an x4500 for a client and wee keep getting drives marked as
degraded with just over 20 checksum errors.
Most of these errors appear to be driver or hardware related and thier
frequency increases during a resilver, which can lead to a death
spiral. The increase in errors within a
On Aug 15, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Haudy Kazemi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a consolidated list of ZFS pool and filesystem versions, along with
> the builds and systems they are found in. It is based on multiple online
> sources. Some of you may find it useful in figuring out where things are at
> ac
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook
>
> The cost discussion is ridiculous, period. $400 is a steal for
> support. You'll pay 3x or more for the same thing from Redhat or
> Novell.
Actually, as a comparison with the mes
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Bob Friesenhahn
>
> The $400 number is bogus since the amount that Oracle quotes now
> depends on the value of the hardware that the OS will run on. For my
Using the same logic, if I said MS
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jerome Warnier
>
> Do not forget Btrfs is mainly developed by ... Oracle. Will it survive
> better than Free Solaris/ZFS?
It's gpl. Just as zfs is cddl. They cannot undo, or revoke the free
For the ZFS diaspora:
1.) For the immediate and near term future (say 1 year), what makes a
better choice for a new install of a ZFS-class filesystem? Would it be
FreeBSD 8 with it's older ZFS version (pool version 14), or NexentaCore
with newer ZFS (pool version 25(?) ), NexentaStor, or somet
Hello,
This is a consolidated list of ZFS pool and filesystem versions, along
with the builds and systems they are found in. It is based on multiple
online sources. Some of you may find it useful in figuring out where
things are at across the spectrum of systems supporting ZFS including
FreeB
On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Marc Emmerson wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have a 10TB array (zpool = 2x 5 disk raidz1), I had dedup enabled on a
> couple of filesystems which I decided to delete last week, the first
> contained about 6GB of data and was deleted in about 30 minutes, the second
> (about
On Aug 15, 2010, at 2:05 PM, TheJay wrote:
> Is there anybody that can help me, or come up with a suggestion other than
> "take a backup to another pool/tape?"
Attach mirrors to c6t5d0, c6t7d0, and c6t8d0.
-- richard
> On Aug 12, 2010, at 5:37 PM, TheJay wrote:
>
>> Guys,
>>
>> Need your hel
Is there anybody that can help me, or come up with a suggestion other than
"take a backup to another pool/tape?"
On Aug 12, 2010, at 5:37 PM, TheJay wrote:
> Guys,
>
> Need your help. My DEV134 OSOL build with my 30TB disk system got really
> screwed due to my fat fingers :-(
>
> I added 3 dri
thanks Tim, I have just chucked in another 4GB, hopefully I'll have my server
back come the morning!
cheers,
Marc
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/
To be fair, he did talk some sense about how everyone was claiming to have a
product that was cloud computing, but I still don't like Oracle. With there
current Java Patent war with Google and now this with OpenSolaris, it leaves
a very bad taste in my mouth.
Will this affect ZFS being used in Fre
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Marc Emmerson wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have a 10TB array (zpool = 2x 5 disk raidz1), I had dedup enabled on a
> couple of filesystems which I decided to delete last week, the first
> contained about 6GB of data and was deleted in about 30 minutes, the second
> (about 1
Hi all,
I have a 10TB array (zpool = 2x 5 disk raidz1), I had dedup enabled on a couple
of filesystems which I decided to delete last week, the first contained about
6GB of data and was deleted in about 30 minutes, the second (about 100GB of
VMs) is still being deleted (I think) 4.5 days later!
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, David Magda wrote:
>
>>
>> But that US$ 400 was only if you wanted support. For the last little while
>> you could run Solaris 10 legally without a support contract without issues.
>>
>
>
I saw this the other day when doing an initial "auto sync" from one Nexenta
3.0.3 node to another (using the ZFS/SSH method). I later tried it again with a
fresh destination pool and the read traffic was minimal. Sadly I didn't have an
opportunity to do and investigation, but it doesn't fit my c
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 07:38 -0700, Richard Jahnel wrote:
> FWIW I'm making a significant bet that Nexenta plus Illumos will be the
> future for the space in which I operate.
>
> I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta
> before Oracle's cunning plans became known
I just copied a snapshot from one zpool (let's call is "source") to
another one ("destination") on the same machine using zpool send/recv.
I'm wondering why this process is taking so much bandwidth reading from
"destination", while writing to it, or reading from "source" did not?
At least this is w
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, David Magda wrote:
But that US$ 400 was only if you wanted support. For the last little while
you could run Solaris 10 legally without a support contract without issues.
The $400 number is bogus since the amount that Oracle quotes now
depends on the value of the hardware
On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 17:35 +0200, Andrej Podzimek wrote:
> > 3. Just stick with b134. Actually, I've managed to compile my way up to
> > b142, but I'm having trouble getting beyond it - my attempts to install
> > later versions just result in new boot environments with the old kernel,
> > even
FWIW I'm making a significant bet that Nexenta plus Illumos will be the future
for the space in which I operate.
I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta
before Oracle's cunning plans became known. This just reaffirms my decision.
--
This message posted from ope
On Aug 14, 2010, at 14:54, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Russ Price
For me, Solaris had zero mindshare since its beginning, on account of
being prohibitively expensive.
I hear that a lot, and I don't get it. $400/yr does move it out of
peoples'
basements generally, and keeps sol10 ou
On Aug 14, 2010, at 19:39, Kevin Walker wrote:
I once watched a video interview with Larry from Oracle, this ass
rambled on
about how he hates cloud computing and that everyone was getting
into cloud
computing and in his opinion no one understood cloud computing,
apart from
him... :-|
If
32 matches
Mail list logo
