On 11/20/07, Asif Iqbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 7:01 AM, Chad Mynhier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/20/07, Asif Iqbal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Nov 19, 2007 1:43 AM, Louwtjie Burger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
ut at a data transmission rate
around 200MB/s rather than the 256MB/s that you'd expect. Fibre
channel uses an 8-bit/10-bit encoding, so it transmits 8-bits of data
in 10 bits on the wire. So while 256MB/s is being transmitted on the
connection itself, only 200MB/s of that is the data that yo
raidz.
You can think of redundancy in ZFS as much the same thing as packet
retransmission in TCP. If the data comes through bad the first time,
checksum verification will catch it, and you get a second chance to
get the correct data. A single-LUN zpool is the moral equivalent of
disabling retr
avoid fragmentation.) In
the ideal case, this means writing to disk at full platter speed.
This is where the main performance benefit of COW comes from.
Chad Mynhier
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
er an independent source of information to say what "should" be
mounted.
This is an example where this feature is convenient. There might be
other examples where this feature is necessary.
Chad Mynhier
[1] Note that the purpose of the script was mostly to guard against
operator error rath
'll need to do so.
Chad Mynhier
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 7/18/06, Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:46:44AM -0400, Chad Mynhier wrote:
> On 7/18/06, Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Being able to remove devices from a pool would be a good thing. I can't
> >
storage from the
pool. You need to wait for all of the data to be migrated, but in the
meantime the data is available to users. You'd be able to do this
with no significant downtime. And if the data migration happens at a
suitably low priority, there's not even a performance hit.
Cha
there would be some way to tell ZFS to treat
a subset of disks as read-only.
Chad Mynhier
http://cmynhier.blogspot.com/
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
