>This would require a low-level re-format and would significantly
>reduce the available space if it was possible at all.
I don't think it is possible.
>> WD has a jumper,
>>but is there explicitly to work with WindowsXP, and is not a real way
>>to dumb down the drive to 512.
>
>All it does is
>Changing the sector size (if it's possible at all) would require a
>reformat of the drive.
The WD drives only support a 4K sector but they pretend to have 512byte
sectors. I don't think they need to format the drive when changing to 4K
sectors. A non-aligned write requires a read-modify-writ
ZFS already aligns the beginning of data areas to 4KB offsets from the label.
For modern OpenSolaris and Solaris implementations, the default starting
block for partitions is also aligned to 4KB.
On Oct 5, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Michael DeMan wrote:
> Hi upfront, and thanks for the valuable informati
Kyle Kakligian gmail.com> writes:
> I'm not sure why `zfs import` choked on this [typical?] error case,
> but its easy to fix with a very careful dd. I took a different and
> very roundabout approach to recover my data, however, since I'm not
> confident in my 'careful' skills. (after all, where
Hi upfront, and thanks for the valuable information.
On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> Another annoying thing with the whole 4K sector size, is what happens
>> when you need to replace drives next year, or the year after?
>
> About the only mitigation needed is to ensure that a
On 2010-Oct-06 05:59:06 +0800, Michael DeMan wrote:
>Another annoying thing with the whole 4K sector size, is what happens
>when you need to replace drives next year, or the year after?
About the only mitigation needed is to ensure that any partitioning is
based on multiples of 4KB.
> Does
>any
Michael DeMan wrote:
The WD 1TB 'enterprise' drives are still 512 sector size and safe to
use, who knows though, maybe they just started shipping with 4K sector
size as I write this e-mail?
Another annoying thing with the whole 4K sector size, is what happens
when you need to replace drives n
On Oct 4, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Wei Li wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> If a ZFS volume is presented to LDOM guest domain as whole disk (used as root
> disk), does anyone know how to snapshot it? It is something like how to
> snapshot zfs raw volume (NOTE, no ufs file system directly created on ZFS
> volume i
On Oct 5, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Michael DeMan wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>
>>> Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal
>>> Hard Drive -Bare Drive
>>>
>>> are only $129.
>>>
>>> vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives.
>>>
>>> 45
On Oct 5, 2010, at 2:47 PM, casper@sun.com wrote:
>
>
> I've seen several important features when selecting a drive for
> a mirror:
>
> TLER (the ability of the drive to timeout a command)
> sector size (native vs virtual)
> power use (specifically at home)
> perform
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:28:18PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> > "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
>
> nw> I would think that 777 would invite chmods. I think you are
> nw> handwaving.
>
> it is how AFS worked. Since no file on a normal unix box besides /tmp
But would the AFS expe
>My immediate reaction to this is "time to avoid WD drives for a while";
>until things shake out and we know what's what reliably.
>
>But, um, what do we know about say the Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ($70),
>the SAMSUNG Spinpoint F3 1TB ($75), or the HITACHI Deskstar 1TB 3.5"
>($70)?
I've seen s
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> > Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal
> > Hard Drive -Bare Drive
> >
> > are only $129.
> >
> > vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives.
> >
> > 45% higher price, but it is my understanding that the 'RA
On Tue, October 5, 2010 15:30, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> I just discovered WD Black drives are rumored not to be set to allow TLER.
> Does anyone know how much performance impact the lack of TLER might have
> on a large pool? Choosing Enterprise drives will cost about 60% more, and
> on a la
On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>> Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal
>> Hard Drive -Bare Drive
>>
>> are only $129.
>>
>> vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives.
>>
>> 45% higher price, but it is my understanding that the 'RAID Editi
> Western Digital RE3 WD1002FBYS 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal
> Hard Drive -Bare Drive
>
> are only $129.
>
> vs. $89 for the 'regular' black drives.
>
> 45% higher price, but it is my understanding that the 'RAID Edition'
> ones also are physically constructed for longer life, lower
I'm not sure on the TLER issues by themselves, but after the nightmares I have
gone through dealing with the 'green drives', which have both the TLER issue
and the IntelliPower head parking issues, I would just stay away from it all
entirely and pay extra for the 'RAID Editiion' drives.
Just ou
Hi all
I just discovered WD Black drives are rumored not to be set to allow TLER. Does
anyone know how much performance impact the lack of TLER might have on a large
pool? Choosing Enterprise drives will cost about 60% more, and on a large
install, that means a lot of money...
Vennlige hilsene
> "dm" == David Magda writes:
dm> Thank you Mr. Moffat et al. Hopefully the rest of us will be
dm> able to bang on this at some point. :)
Thanks for the heads-up on the gossip.
This etiquette seems weird, though: I don't thank Microsoft for
releasing a new version of Word. I'll p
Just for history as to why Fishworks was running on this box...we were
in the beta program and have upgraded along the way. This box is an
X4240 with 16x 146GB disks running the Feb 2010 release of FW with
de-dupe.
We were getting ready to re-purpose the box and getting our data off.
We then delet
Hi Sridhar,
After a zpool split operation, you can access the newly created
pool by using the zpool import command.
If the LUNs from mypool are available on host1 and host2, you
should be able to import mypool_snap from host2. After mypool_snap
is imported, it will be available for backups, but
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 04:30:05PM -0600, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> I don't think you will see much difference for these reasons:
>
> 1. The CIFS server ignores the aclinherit/aclmode properties.
Because CIFS/SMB has no chmod operation :)
> 2. Your aclinherit=passthrough setting o
Hi,
If have below kind of configuration (as an example):
c1t1d1 and c2t2d2 are two LUNs visible (un masked) to both host1 and host2.
Created a pool mypool as below
zpool create mypool mirror c1t1d1 c2t2d2
Now I did zpool split
zpool split mypool mypool_snap
Once i run zpool split, is t
Hi Cindy,
That sounds very reassuring.
Thanks a lot.
Simon
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
This seems to have been a false alarm, sorry for that. As soon as I started
paying attention (logging zpool status, peeking around with zdb & mdb) the
resilver didn't restart unless provoked. A cleartext log would have been
nice ("restarted due to c11t7 becoming online").
A slight problem i can se
25 matches
Mail list logo
