Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:19 AM, Khushil Dep wrote: > "Friends don't let friends disable the ZIL" - right Richard? :-) > > Or, if you care about your data enough to bother with RAID, don't disable the ZIL :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs

[zfs-discuss] MTBF and why we care [was: A few questions]

On Dec 21, 2010, at 3:48 AM, Phil Harman wrote: > On 21/12/2010 05:44, Richard Elling wrote: >> >> On Dec 20, 2010, at 7:31 AM, Phil Harman wrote: >>> On 20/12/2010 13:59, Richard Elling wrote: On Dec 20, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Phil Harman wrote: >> Why does resilvering take so long in

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:05 AM, Deano wrote: > > > The question therefore is, is there room in the software implementation to > achieve performance and reliability numbers similar to expensive drives > whilst using relative cheap drives? > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Long resilver time

On Dec 21, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Jackson Wang wrote: > Dear Richard, > I am a Nexenta user and now I meet the same problem of the resilver spend too > long time. I try to find out solution from the link on your content that "zfs > set resilver_speed=10% pool_name" but the Nexenta without the property

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:05 AM, Deano wrote: > > The question therefore is, is there room in the software implementation to > achieve performance and reliability numbers similar to expensive drives > whilst using relative cheap drives? For some definition of "similar," yes. But using relatively ch

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

On Dec 25, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Ross Walker wrote: > On Dec 24, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > >> Latency is what matters most. While there is a loose relationship between >> IOPS >> and latency, you really want low latency. For 15krpm drives, the average >> latency >> is 2ms for zero

Re: [zfs-discuss] BOOT, ZIL, L2ARC one one SSD?

Understood Edward, and if this was a production data center, I wouldn't be doing it this way. This is for my home lab, so spending hundreds of dollars on SSD devices isn't practical. Can several datasets share a single ZIL and a single L2ARC, or much must each dataset have their own? -- This

Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL

On Dec 24, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > Latency is what matters most. While there is a loose relationship between > IOPS > and latency, you really want low latency. For 15krpm drives, the average > latency > is 2ms for zero seeks. A decent SSD will beat that by an order of magni

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/25/2010 12:16 PM, joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Erik Trimble wrote: I've read Joerg's paper, and I've read several of the patents in question, and nowhere around is there any real code. A bit of Netapp filed patents (without code) in 1993, I of course have working code for S

Re: [zfs-discuss] Understanding Disk Errors

- Original Message - > I am trying to understand the various error conditions reported by > iostat. I noticed during a recent scrub that my transport errors were > increasing. However, after a fair amount of searching I am unsure if > that indicates a drive failure or not. I also have a lot

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote: > Erik Trimble wrote: > > > I've read Joerg's paper, and I've read several of the patents in > > question, and nowhere around is there any real code. A bit of > > Netapp filed patents (without code) in 1993, I of course have working c

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Erik Trimble wrote: > I've read Joerg's paper, and I've read several of the patents in > question, and nowhere around is there any real code. A bit of Netapp filed patents (without code) in 1993, I of course have working code for SuinOS-4.9 from 1991. Se below for more information. > pseudo-

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/25/2010 11:19 AM, Tim Cook wrote: On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Erik Trimble > wrote: On 12/25/2010 6:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/25/2010 10:59 AM, Tim Cook wrote: On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey > wrote: > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 12/25/2010 6:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling >>> >>> And people should note that Netapp filed their patents starti

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On 12/25/2010 6:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling And people should note that Netapp filed their patents starting from 1993. This is 5 years after I started to develop WOFS, which i

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling > > > > And people should note that Netapp filed their patent

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

"Friends don't let friends disable the ZIL" - right Richard? :-) On 24 Dec 2010 20:34, "Richard Elling" wrote: ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling > > And people should note that Netapp filed their patents starting from 1993. > This > is 5 years after I started to develop WOFS, which is copy on write. This still > > In an

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Martin Matuska > > Hi guys, I am one of the ZFS porting folks at FreeBSD. That's all really cool, and IMHO, more promising than anything I knew before. But I'll really believe it if (a) some

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

Martin Matuska wrote: > Tim Cook cook.ms> writes: > > > You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested.  It is > your opinion and nothing more.  I'd appreciate if every time you repeated that > statement, you'd preface it with "in my opinion" so you don't have people > runnin