On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> I do have a lot of what would appear to be unnecessary filesystems, but
> after loosing the WAN 3 days into a large transfer, a change of tactic was
> required!
>
I've recently (last year or so) gone the other way, and have made an effort
to c
On Oct 5, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Albert Shih wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm actually running ZFS under FreeBSD. I've a question about how many
> disks I «can» have in one pool.
>
> At this moment I'm running with one server (FreeBSD 9.0) with 4 MD1200
> (Dell) meaning 48 disks. I've configure with 4 raid
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Albert Shih
>
> I'm actually running ZFS under FreeBSD. I've a question about how many
> disks I have in one pool.
>
> At this moment I'm running with one server (FreeBSD 9.0) with 4 MD1200
>
Hi all,
I'm actually running ZFS under FreeBSD. I've a question about how many
disks I «can» have in one pool.
At this moment I'm running with one server (FreeBSD 9.0) with 4 MD1200
(Dell) meaning 48 disks. I've configure with 4 raidz2 in the pool (one on
each MD1200)
On what I understand I can
On 10/06/12 07:57, Edward Ned Harvey
(opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
I do have to suffer a slow, glitchy WAN to a re
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> I do have to suffer a slow, glitchy WAN to a remote server and rather than
> send stream files, I broke the data on the re
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
>
> I must be missing something - I don't see anything above that indicates any
> required vs optional dependencies.
Ok, I see that now. (Thanks to the SMF FAQ).
A dependenc
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:17 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> I do have to suffer a slow, glitchy WAN to a remote server and rather than
> send stream files, I broke the data *on the remote server* into a more
> fine grained set of filesystems than I would do normally. In this case, I
> made the director
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tiernan OToole
>
> I am in the process of planning a system which will have 2 ZFS servers, one on
> site, one off site. The on site server will be used by workstations and
> servers
> in house
> From: Neil Perrin [mailto:neil.per...@oracle.com]
>
> In general - yes, but it really depends. Multiple synchronous writes of any
> size
> across multiple file systems will fan out across the log devices. That is
> because there is a separate independent log chain for each file system.
>
> Also
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
>
> Well, it seems just like a peculiar effect of required vs. optional
> dependencies. The loop is in the default installation. Details:
>
> # svcprop filesystem/usr | grep schedul
Thanks Ian. That sounds like an option also. The plan was to break up the
file systems anyway, since some i will want to be replicated remotely, and
others not as much.
--Tiernan
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 10/05/12 21:36, Jim Klimov wrote:
>
>> 2012-10-05 11:17, Ti
On 10/05/12 21:36, Jim Klimov wrote:
2012-10-05 11:17, Tiernan OToole wrote:
Also, as a follow up question, but slightly unrelated, when it comes to
the ZFS Send, i could use SSH to do the send, directly to the machine...
Or i could upload the compressed, and possibly encrypted dump to the
serve
Thanks again Jim. Very handy info. This is now my weekend project, so
hopefully things go well!
--Tiernan
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> 2012-10-05 13:13, Tiernan OToole wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that Jim!
>>
>> Sounds like a plan there... One question about the storing ZFS d
2012-10-05 13:13, Tiernan OToole wrote:
Thanks for that Jim!
Sounds like a plan there... One question about the storing ZFS dumps in
a file... So, the idea of storing the data in a SFTP server which has an
unknown underlying file system... Is that defiantly off limits, or can
it be done?
Milea
Thanks for that Jim!
Sounds like a plan there... One question about the storing ZFS dumps in a
file... So, the idea of storing the data in a SFTP server which has an
unknown underlying file system... Is that defiantly off limits, or can it
be done? and should i be doing a full dump or just an incr
2012-10-05 11:17, Tiernan OToole wrote:
Also, as a follow up question, but slightly unrelated, when it comes to
the ZFS Send, i could use SSH to do the send, directly to the machine...
Or i could upload the compressed, and possibly encrypted dump to the
server... Which, for resume-ability and spe
2012-10-05 4:57, Jerry Kemp wrote:
Its been awhile, but it seems like in the past, you would power the
system down, boot from removable media, import your pool then destroy or
archive the /etc/zfs/zpool.cache, and possibly your /etc/path_to_inst
file, power down again and re-arrange your hardware
Good morning.
I am in the process of planning a system which will have 2 ZFS servers, one
on site, one off site. The on site server will be used by workstations and
servers in house, and most of that will stay in house. There will, however,
be data i want backed up somewhere else, which is where t
19 matches
Mail list logo
