>
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:52:04PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> > Other than the initial create, and the most
> > recent scrub, the history only contains a sequence of auto-snapshot
> > creations and removals. None of the other commands I'd expect, like
> > the filesystem creations and recv,
Just a ping for any further updates, as well as a crosspost to migrate
the thread to zfs-discuss (from -crypto-).
Is there any further information I can provide? What's going on with
that "zpool history", and does it tell you anything about the chances
of recovering the actual key used?
On Thu,
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Matt Weatherford wrote:
> pike# zpool get version internal
> NAME PROPERTY VALUESOURCE
> internal version 28 default
> pike# zpool get version external-J4400-12x1TB
> NAME PROPERTY VALUESOURCE
> external-J4400-12x1TB versi
Hi,
We have a Sun/Oracle Fishworks appliance that we have spent a good
amount of $ on. This is a great box and we love it, although the EDU
discounts that Sun used to provide for hardware and support contracts
seem to have dried up so the cost of supporting it moving forward is
still unknown
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> The systems where we have had issues, are two 100TB boxes, with some
> 160TB "raw" storage each, so licensing this with nexentastor will be
> rather expensive. What would you suggest? Will a solaris express
> install give us go
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 03:50:09PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> That said, for each block written (unique or not), the DDT must be updated,
> which means reading and then writing the block that contains that dedup
> table entry, and the indirect blocks to get to it. With a reasonably large
> DD
> From: Matthew Ahrens [mailto:mahr...@delphix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 6:50 PM
>
> The DDT is a ZAP object, so it is an on-disk hashtable, free of O(log(n))
> rebalancing operations. It is written asynchronously, from syncing
> context. That said, for each block written (unique or n
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Edward Ned Harvey <
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote:
> I've finally returned to this dedup testing project, trying to get a handle
> on why performance is so terrible. At the moment I'm re-running tests and
> monitoring memory_throttle_co
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Peter Jeremy <
peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> On 2011-May-26 03:02:04 +0800, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
>
> Looks good.
>
Thanks for taking the time to look at this. More comments inline below.
> >pool open ("zpool import" and implicit import from zpool.
On 2011-May-26 03:02:04 +0800, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
>The first product of the working group is the design for a ZFS on-disk
>versioning method that will allow for distributed development of ZFS
>on-disk format changes without further explicit coordination. This
>method eliminates the problem of t
On 05/26/11 04:21 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
Actually, this doesn't always work. There have been attempts to stack the deck
and force votes at IETF. One memorable meeting was more of a flashmob than a
standards meeting :-)
Is there a video :)
The key stakeholders and contributors of ZFS code
On 05/26/11 12:15 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards that
do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies that
*do* hold open meetings.
ISO language standards committees may not hold public meetings, bu
I've finally returned to this dedup testing project, trying to get a handle
on why performance is so terrible. At the moment I'm re-running tests and
monitoring memory_throttle_count, to see if maybe that's what's causing the
limit. But while that's in progress and I'm still thinking...
I ass
Hi all
I have a few servers running openindiana 148, and it's been running rather well
for some time. Lately, however, we've seen some hichups that may be related to
the platform, rather than the hardware. The actual errors have been variable.
Some issues were due to some supermicro backplanes
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Deano wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> That's looks really good, I've been meaning to implement a ZFS compressor
> (using a two pass, LZ4 + Arithmetic Entropy), so nice to see a route with
> which this can be done.
>
Cool! New compression algorithms are definitely some
Hi Matt,
That's looks really good, I've been meaning to implement a ZFS compressor
(using a two pass, LZ4 + Arithmetic Entropy), so nice to see a route with
which this can be done.
One question, is the extendibility of RAID and other similar systems, my
quick perusal makes me thinks this is hand
The community of developers working on ZFS continues to grow, as does
the diversity of companies betting big on ZFS. We wanted a forum for
these developers to coordinate their efforts and exchange ideas. The
ZFS working group was formed to coordinate these development efforts.
The working group e
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Richard Elling wrote:
The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor
interference. Vendors who want to participate in defining an interoperable
standard can achieve substantial success. Vendors who only want their own way
encounter deafening silence
On May 25, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Paul Kraus wrote:
>
>> The standards committees I have observed (I have never been on
>> one) are generally in the audio space and not the computer, but while
>> they welcome "guests", the decisions are reserved for the
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Paul Kraus wrote:
There have been a number of RFC's effectively written by one
vendor in order to be able to claim "open standards compliance", the
biggest corporate offender in this regard, but clearly not the only
one, is Microsoft. The next time I run across one of the
Paul Kraus wrote:
> There have been a number of RFC's effectively written by one
> vendor in order to be able to claim "open standards compliance", the
> biggest corporate offender in this regard, but clearly not the only
> one, is Microsoft. The next time I run across one of these RFC's I'll
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Paul Kraus wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
>
> > The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor
> > interference. Vendors who want to participate in defining an
> interoperable
> > standard can achieve sub
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor
> interference. Vendors who want to participate in defining an interoperable
> standard can achieve substantial success. Vendors who only want their own
> way encounter
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Paul Kraus wrote:
The standards committees I have observed (I have never been on
one) are generally in the audio space and not the computer, but while
they welcome "guests", the decisions are reserved for the committee
members. Committee membership is not open to anyone w
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Frank Van Damme
wrote:
> Op 25-05-11 14:27, joerg.moellenk...@sun.com schreef:
> > Well, at first ZFS development is no standard body and at the end
> > everything has to be measured in compatibility to the Oracle ZFS
> > implementation
>
> Why? Given that ZFS is S
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do
standards that do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any
standards bodies that *do* hold open meetings.
The IETF holds totally open meetings. I hope that you are
appreciat
Op 25-05-11 14:27, joerg.moellenk...@sun.com schreef:
> Well, at first ZFS development is no standard body and at the end
> everything has to be measured in compatibility to the Oracle ZFS
> implementation
Why? Given that ZFS is Solaris ZFS just as well as Nexenta ZFS just as
well as illumos ZFS,
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards
> that
> do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies that
> *do* hold
> open meetings.
The standards committees I have observed (I
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards
> that do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies
> that *do* hold open meetings.
You probybly don't know POSIX.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berli
Well, at first ZFS development is no standard body and at the end
everything has to be measured in compatibility to the Oracle ZFS
implementation. However there is surely a bad aftertaste of such a
policy. Someone can't complain about Oracles position to opensource and
put the development of Z
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards
> that do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies
> that *do* hold open meetings.
>
I think he may mean open to public application. N
You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards that
do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies that
*do* hold open meetings.
-- Garrett D'Amore
On May 25, 2011, at 4:09 PM, "Joerg Schilling"
wrote:
> "Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
>
>> I
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> I am sure that the group exists ... I am a part of it, as are many of the
> former Oracle ZFS engineers and a number of other ZFS contributors.
>
> Whatever your proposal was, we have not seen it, but a solution has been
> agreed upon widely already, and implementatio
>However, do remember that you might not be able to import a pool from
>another system, simply because your system can't support the
>featureset. Ideally, it would be nice if you could just import the pool
>and use the features your current OS supports, but that's pretty darned
>dicey, and I'
This will absolutely remain possible -- as the party responsible for Nexenta's
kernel, I can assure that pool import/export compatibility is a key requirement
for Nexenta's product.
-- Garrett D'Amore
On May 25, 2011, at 3:39 PM, "Frank Van Damme" wrote:
> Op 24-05-11 22:58, LaoTsao schreef
On 5/25/2011 4:37 AM, Frank Van Damme wrote:
Op 24-05-11 22:58, LaoTsao schreef:
With various fock of opensource project
E.g. Zfs, opensolaris, openindina etc there are all different
There are not guarantee to be compatible
I hope at least they'll try. Just in case I want to import/export zpool
Op 24-05-11 22:58, LaoTsao schreef:
> With various fock of opensource project
> E.g. Zfs, opensolaris, openindina etc there are all different
> There are not guarantee to be compatible
I hope at least they'll try. Just in case I want to import/export zpools
between Nexenta and OpenIndiana?
--
N
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-May-25 03:49:43 +0800, Brandon High wrote:
> >... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta's v30.
>
> This would be unfortunate but no worse than the current situation
> with UFS - Solaris, *BSD and HP Tru64 all have native UFS filesystems,
> all of which
Still i wonder what Gartner means with Oracle monetizing on ZFS..
It simply means that Oracle want to make money from ZFS (as is normal
for technology companies with their own technology). The reason this
might cause uncertainty for ZFS is that maintaining or helping make
the open source v
39 matches
Mail list logo
