Re: [zfs-discuss] [OpenIndiana-discuss] iops...

> From: Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk [mailto:r...@karlsbakk.net] > > The numbers I've heard say the number of iops for a raidzn volume should > be about the number of iops for the slowest drive in the set. While this might > sound like a good base point, I tend to disagree. I've been doing some testing >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Problem with a failed replace.

Hi Mark, I've tried running "zpool attach media ad24 ad12" (ad12 being the new disk) and I get no response. I tried leaving the command run for an extended period of time and nothing happens. Thoughts? On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Mark J Musante wrote: > > > On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Curtis Schie

Re: [zfs-discuss] 3TB HDD in ZFS

On 7 December 2010 13:55, Tim Cook wrote: > It's based on a jumper on most new drives. > Can you back that up with anything? I've never seen anything but requests for a jumper that forces the firmware to export 4KiB sectors. WD EARS at launch provided the ability to force the requested LBA to be

Re: [zfs-discuss] 3TB HDD in ZFS

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:40 PM, taemun wrote: > I think you'll find that these 3TB, 4KiB physical sector drives are still > exporting logical sectors of 512B (this is what Anandtech has indicated, > anyway). ZFS assumes that the drives logical sectors are directly mapped to > physical sectors, and

Re: [zfs-discuss] 3TB HDD in ZFS

It's based on a jumper on most new drives. On Dec 6, 2010 8:41 PM, "taemun" wrote: > On 7 December 2010 13:25, Brandon High wrote: >> >> There shouldn't be any problems using a 3TB drive with Solaris, so >> long as you're using a 64-bit kernel. Recent versions of zfs should >> properly recognize

Re: [zfs-discuss] 3TB HDD in ZFS

On 7 December 2010 13:25, Brandon High wrote: > > There shouldn't be any problems using a 3TB drive with Solaris, so > long as you're using a 64-bit kernel. Recent versions of zfs should > properly recognize the 4k sector size as well. > I think you'll find that these 3TB, 4KiB physical sector dr

Re: [zfs-discuss] 3TB HDD in ZFS

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Fred Liu wrote: > Anyone who has experience with 3TB HDD in ZFS? Can solaris  recognize this > new HDD? There shouldn't be any problems using a 3TB drive with Solaris, so long as you're using a 64-bit kernel. Recent versions of zfs should properly recognize the 4k

[zfs-discuss] ZFS ACL's broken over NFS

As is altogether far too common an occurance, we were having a problem where a file was not inheriting the correct ACL, but rather a horribly munged one resulting in incorrect permissions and security problems. It appeared something was chmod'ing the file after creation, but despite best efforts

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to safely parse "zpool get all" output?

Spaces are permitted in the value field. We (myself and Nexenta) use them extensively. -- richard On Dec 6, 2010, at 1:40 PM, Peter Taps wrote: > Folks, > > Command "zpool get all poolName" does not provide any option to generate > parsable output. The returned output contains 4 fields - nam

Re: [zfs-discuss] iops...

On Mon, Dec 6 at 23:22, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: Hi all The numbers I've heard say the number of iops for a raidzn volume should be about the number of iops for the slowest drive in the set. While this might sound like a good base point, I tend to disagree. I've been doing some testing on so

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to safely parse "zpool get all" output?

Hi, Thank you for your help. I actually had the script working. However, I just wanted to make sure that spaces are not permitted within the field value itself. Otherwise, the regular expression would break. Regards, Peter -- This message posted from opensolaris.org __

[zfs-discuss] iops...

Hi all The numbers I've heard say the number of iops for a raidzn volume should be about the number of iops for the slowest drive in the set. While this might sound like a good base point, I tend to disagree. I've been doing some testing on some raidz2 volumes with various sizes and similar var

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to safely parse "zpool get all" output?

> Command "zpool get all poolName" does not provide any option to > generate parsable output. The returned output contains 4 fields - > name, property, value and source. These fields seems to be separated > by spaces. I am wondering if it is safe to assume that there are no > spaces in the field va

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to safely parse "zpool get all" output?

> Command "zpool get all poolName" does not provide any option to > generate parsable output. The returned output contains 4 fields - > name, property, value and source. These fields seems to be separated > by spaces. I am wondering if it is safe to assume that there are no > spaces in the field va

[zfs-discuss] How to safely parse "zpool get all" output?

Folks, Command "zpool get all poolName" does not provide any option to generate parsable output. The returned output contains 4 fields - name, property, value and source. These fields seems to be separated by spaces. I am wondering if it is safe to assume that there are no spaces in the field v

Re: [zfs-discuss] snaps lost in space?

Thanks for the pointer. AFAIK there are no clones involved. The output of "zdb -d p0" is below. I found no differences with that and the output of the "zfs list" command. r...@onix# zdb -d p0 | egrep 'p0\/home'|sort Dataset p0/home [ZPL], ID 33, cr_txg 432, 69.7G, 192681 objects Dataset p0/h...

Re: [zfs-discuss] snaps lost in space?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joost Mulders > > This tells me that *86,7G* is used by *snapshots* of this filesystem. > However, when I look at the space allocation of the snapshots, I don't > see the 86,7G back! > > jo...

Re: [zfs-discuss] accidentally added a drive?

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Tomas Ögren wrote: > On 05 December, 2010 - Chris Gerhard sent me these 0,3K bytes: > >> Alas you are hosed.  There is at the moment no way to shrink a pool which is >> what you now need to be able to do. >> >> back up and restore I am afraid. > > .. or add a mirro

Re: [zfs-discuss] accidentally added a drive?

On 05 December, 2010 - Chris Gerhard sent me these 0,3K bytes: > Alas you are hosed. There is at the moment no way to shrink a pool which is > what you now need to be able to do. > > back up and restore I am afraid. .. or add a mirror to that drive, to keep some redundancy. /Tomas -- Tomas Ö

Re: [zfs-discuss] accidentally added a drive?

Alas you are hosed. There is at the moment no way to shrink a pool which is what you now need to be able to do. back up and restore I am afraid. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http:

Re: [zfs-discuss] accidentally added a drive?

here it is properly formatted! >--NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM >--tank DEGRADED 0 0 0 >--ad4s1d ONLINE 0 0 0 >--raidz1 DEGRADED 0 0 0 >-ad6s1d ONLINE 0 0 0 >-ad8s1d UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot annot o

[zfs-discuss] accidentally added a drive?

I'm trying to individually upgrade drives in my raid z configuration, but I accidentally added my replacement drive to the root rank instead of the raidz1 under it.. Right now things look like this.. NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM tank DEGRADED 0 0

Re: [zfs-discuss] 3TB HDD in ZFS

On 12/06/2010 05:17 AM, taemun wrote: > On 6 December 2010 21:43, Fred Liu > wrote: > > 3TB HDD needs UEFI not the traditional BIOS and OS support. > > > > Fred > > > Fred: > http://www.anandtech.com/show/3858/the-worlds-first-3tb-hdd-seagate-goflex-desk-

Re: [zfs-discuss] 3TB HDD in ZFS

On 6 December 2010 21:43, Fred Liu wrote: > > 3TB HDD needs UEFI not the traditional BIOS and OS support. > > > > Fred > Fred: http://www.anandtech.com/show/3858/the-worlds-first-3tb-hdd-seagate-goflex-desk-3tb-review/2 Namely: "a feature of GPT is 64-bit LBA support. With 64-bit LBAs the larges

[zfs-discuss] snaps lost in space?

Hi, I've output of space allocation which I can't explain. I hope someone can point me at the right direction. The allocation of my "home" filesystem looks like this: jo...@onix$ zfs list -o space p0/home NAME AVAIL USED USEDSNAP USEDDS USEDREFRESERV USEDCHILD p0/home 31.0G 156G

Re: [zfs-discuss] 3TB HDD in ZFS

I haven't tested them, but we're using multi-terabyte iscsi volumes now, so I don't really see what could be different. The only possible issue I know of, is that 3TB drives uses 4k sectors, which might not be optimal in all environments. Vennlige hilsener / Best regards 3TB HDD needs UEFI not t

Re: [zfs-discuss] 3TB HDD in ZFS

- Original Message - Hi, Anyone who has experience with 3TB HDD in ZFS? Can solaris recognize this new HDD? I haven't tested them, but we're using multi-terabyte iscsi volumes now, so I don't really see what could be different. The only possible issue I know of, is that 3TB dri