Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Distro Advice

On Tue, March 5, 2013 11:17, Russ Poyner wrote: > Your idea to use zfs diff to limit the need to stat the entire > filesystem tree intrigues me. My current rsync backups are normally > limited by this very factor. It takes longer to walk the filesystem tree > than it does to transfer the new data.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Distro Advice

On Tue, March 5, 2013 10:02, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > Rsync does need to read files on the destination filesystem to see if > they have changed. If the system has sufficient RAM (and/or L2ARC) > then files may still be cached from the previous day's run. In most > cases only a small subset of th

Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel DC S3700

On Wed, November 21, 2012 16:06, Jim Klimov wrote: > On 2012-11-21 21:55, Ian Collins wrote: >> I can't help thinking these drives would be overkill for an ARC device. >> All of the expensive controller hardware is geared to boosting random >> write IOPs, which somewhat wasted on a write slowly, re

Re: [zfs-discuss] New fast hash algorithm - is it needed?

On Wed, July 11, 2012 11:58, Gregg Wonderly wrote: > You're entirely sure that there could never be two different blocks that > can hash to the same value and have different content? [...] The odds of being hit by lighting (at least in the US) are about 1 in 700,000. I don't worry about that happe

Re: [zfs-discuss] New fast hash algorithm - is it needed?

On Wed, July 11, 2012 10:23, casper@oracle.com wrote: > I think that I/O isn't getting as fast as CPU is; memory capacity and > bandwith and CPUs are getting faster. I/O, not so much. > (Apart from the one single step from harddisk to SSD; but note that > I/O is limited to standard interfaces

Re: [zfs-discuss] New fast hash algorithm - is it needed?

On Wed, July 11, 2012 09:45, Sašo Kiselkov wrote: > I'm not convinced waiting makes much sense. The SHA-3 standardization > process' goals are different from "ours". SHA-3 can choose to go with > something that's slower, but has a higher security margin. I think that > absolute super-tight securit

Re: [zfs-discuss] New fast hash algorithm - is it needed?

On Tue, July 10, 2012 19:56, Sašo Kiselkov wrote: > However, before I start out on a pointless endeavor, I wanted to probe > the field of ZFS users, especially those using dedup, on whether their > workloads would benefit from a faster hash algorithm (and hence, lower > CPU utilization). Developme

Re: [zfs-discuss] New fast hash algorithm - is it needed?

On Wed, July 11, 2012 04:50, Ferenc-Levente Juhos wrote: > Actually although as you pointed out that the chances to have an sha256 > collision is minimal, but still it can happen, that would mean > that the dedup algorithm discards a block that he thinks is a duplicate. > Probably it's anyway bette

Re: [zfs-discuss] Is there an actual newsgroup for zfs-discuss?

newsgroup. Name it something like comp.unix.solaris.zfs. Or just have it all go to comp.unix.solaris, which of course already exists. Anyway, I hope I've answered your question. Cheers! David -Original Message- From: James C. McPherson [mailto:j...@opensolaris.org] Sent: Monday,

[zfs-discuss] Is there an actual newsgroup for zfs-discuss?

Actual newsgroup for zfs-discuss? David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] Fwd: My blog post about installing ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux posted to the zfs-discuss mailing list

Done and done, to both lists -- Forwarded message -- From: "Aaron Toponce" Date: May 6, 2012 7:48 AM Subject: My blog post about installing ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux posted to the zfs-discuss mailing list To: "David E." http://pthree.org/2012/04/17/install-zf

[zfs-discuss] Aaron Toponce: Install ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux

fyi Sent to you by David E. via Google Reader: Aaron Toponce: Install ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux via Planet Ubuntu on 4/17/12 Quick post on installing ZFS as a kernel module, not FUSE, on Debian GNU/Linux. The documents already exist for getting this going, I’m just hoping to spread this to a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Server upgrade

On Thu, February 16, 2012 11:18, Paul Kraus wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:42 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > >> I'm seriously thinking of going Nexenta, as I think it would let me be a >> little less of a sysadmin.  Solaris 11 express is tempting in its own >> w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Server upgrade

On Wed, February 15, 2012 18:06, Brandon High wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:16 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >> Is there an upgrade path from (I think I'm running Solaris Express) to >> something modern?  (That could be an Oracle distribution, or the free > > There

Re: [zfs-discuss] Server upgrade

On Thu, February 16, 2012 13:31, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David Dyer-Bennet >> >> This is already getting useful; "which has never worked for me" for >&

Re: [zfs-discuss] Server upgrade

On Thu, February 16, 2012 08:54, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David Dyer-Bennet >> >> While I'm not in need of upgrading my server at an emergency level, I'm &

Re: [zfs-discuss] encryption

On Thu, February 16, 2012 09:55, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > I've never used ZFS encryption. How does it work? Do you need to type in > a pre-boot password? And if so, how do you do that with a server? Or does > it use TPM or something similar, to avoid the need for a pre-boot password? Darren

[zfs-discuss] Server upgrade

bs, too.) AND, what "something" should I upgrade to or install? I've tried a couple of times to figure out the alternatives and it's never really clear to me what my good options are. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b

Re: [zfs-discuss] GUI to set ACLs

On Wed, February 1, 2012 14:03, Linder, Doug wrote: > Achim Wolpers wrote: > >> I'm searching for a GUI tool to set ZFS (NFSv4) ACLs. I found some >> nautilus add ons in the web but >> they don't seen to work with nautilus shipped with OI. Any solution? > > I've been looking for something like this

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send recv without uncompressing data stream

On Tue, January 24, 2012 13:37, Jim Klimov wrote: > One more rationale - compatibility, including future-proof > somewhat (the zfs-send format explicitly does not guarantee > that it won't change incompatibly). I mean stransfer of data > between systems that do not implement the same set of > comp

Re: [zfs-discuss] unable to access the zpool after issue a reboot

Sudheer, I don't know what the module name is for dynapath, but you may want to include a forceload statement in /etc/system.  This will cause the driver to load during initialization.  Usually all the modules in the stack should be included, such as the sd driver. example: forceload:  drv/

Re: [zfs-discuss] Apple's ZFS-alike - Re: Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot? If yes - how?

On Mon, January 16, 2012 11:22, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > This seems very unlikely since the future needs of Apple show little > requirement for zfs. Apple only offers one computer model which > provides ECC and a disk drive configuration which is marginally useful > for zfs. This computer model h

Re: [zfs-discuss] Apple's ZFS-alike - Re: Does raidzN actually protect against bitrot? If yes - how?

n, it's really not" - that Apple is building their own clone >> of ZFS. > > I don't know why APple don't just get off the pot and officially adopy > ZFS. I mean, they've embraced DTrace, so what's stopping them from using > ZFS too? This was discussed

Re: [zfs-discuss] Data loss by memory corruption?

On Mon, January 16, 2012 01:19, Richard Elling wrote: >> [1] http://www.usenix.org/event/fast10/tech/full_papers/zhang.pdf > > Yes. Netapp has funded those researchers in the past. Looks like a FUD > piece to me. > Lookout everyone, the memory system you bought from Intel might suck! >From the pa

Re: [zfs-discuss] Idea: ZFS and on-disk ECC for blocks

On Wed, January 11, 2012 11:40, Nico Williams wrote: > I don't find this terribly attractive, but maybe I'm just not looking > at it the right way. Perhaps there is a killer enterprise feature for > ECC here: stretching MTTDL in the face of a device failure in a mirror > or raid-z configuration (

Re: [zfs-discuss] arc_no_grow is set to 1 and never set back to 0

Well it looks like the only place this get's changed is in the arc_reclaim_thread for opensolaris.  I suppose you could dtrace it to see what is going on and investigate what is happening to the return code of the arc_reclaim_needed is. http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/us

Re: [zfs-discuss] grrr, How to get rid of mis-touched file named `-c'

You could list by inode, then use find with rm. # ls -i 7223 -O # find . -inum 7223 -exec rm {} \; David On 11/23/11 2:00 PM, "Jason King (Gmail)" wrote: > Did you try rm -- filename ? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 23, 2011, at 1:43 PM, Harry Putnam wrote

Re: [zfs-discuss] slow zfs send/recv speed

remental sends is that the disks being read are hitting their IOPS limits. Zfs send does random reads all over the place -- every block that's changed since the last incremental send is read, in TXG order. So that's essentially random reads all of the disk. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@d

Re: [zfs-discuss] Remove corrupt files from snapshot

photos.) A weekly scrub combined with a decent backup plan will detect bit-rot before the backups with the correct data cycle into the trash (and, with redundant storage like mirroring or RAID, the scrub will probably be able to fix the error without resorting to restoring files from backup). --

Re: [zfs-discuss] slow zfs send/recv speed

han 1GB, if it's a stitched panorama with layers of changes). And then there are sidecar XMP files, mostly two per image, and for most of them web-resolution images, 100kB. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http:/

Re: [zfs-discuss] weird bug with Seagate 3TB USB3 drive

On Nov 12, 2011, at 00:55, Richard Elling wrote: > Better than ? > If the disks advertise 512 bytes, the only way around it is with a whitelist. > I would > be rather surprised if Oracle sells 4KB sector disks for Solaris systems… Solaris 10. OpenSolaris. But would it be surprising to use SANs

Re: [zfs-discuss] weird bug with Seagate 3TB USB3 drive

On Nov 10, 2011, at 18:41, Daniel Carosone wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 08:17:55PM -0400, John D Groenveld wrote: >> Under both Solaris 10 and Solaris 11x, I receive the evil message: >> | I/O request is not aligned with 4096 disk sector size. >> | It is handled through Read Modify Write but t

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sync=disabled property

On Wed, November 9, 2011 10:35, Tomas Forsman wrote: > Too bad NFS is resilient against servers coming and going.. NFSv4 is statefull, so server reboots are more noticeable. (This has pluses and minuses.) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opens

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs sync=disabled property

On Tue, November 8, 2011 09:38, Evaldas Auryla wrote: > I'm trying to evaluate what are the risks of running NFS share of zfs > dataset with sync=disabled property. The clients are vmware hosts in our > environment and server is SunFire X4540 "Thor" system. Though general > recommendation tells not

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive scenario problem w/ auto-snap service

se or modify it for our purposes. On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Jim Klimov wrote: > 2011-11-05 2:12, HUGE | David Stahl wrote: > Our problem is that we need to use the -R to snapshot and send all > >> the child zvols, yet since we have a lot of data (3.5 TB), the hourly >> sn

[zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive scenario problem w/ auto-snap service

, yet we seem to use that feature as people here tend to accidentally delete stuff off the server. Or perhaps disabling the hourlies service at the beginning of the script and re-enabling at the end. Or is there a better way of doing this that I am not seeing? -- HUGE David Stahl Sr. Systems A

Re: [zfs-discuss] (OT) forums and email

On Wed, November 2, 2011 08:25, Paul Kraus wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Jim Klimov wrote: > >> Really, they WERE still a useful reference for many of us, >> even if posted a few years back... > > I always used the mailing list, and have kept every message since > I subscribed in ab

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on Dell with FreeBSD

On Thu, October 27, 2011 11:32, Albert Shih wrote: >> I also recommend LSI 9200-8E or new 9205-8E with the IT firmware based >> on past experience > > Do you known if the LSI-9205-8E HBA or the LSI-9202-16E HBA work under > FreBSD 9.0 ? Check the man page for mpt(4): http://www.freebsd.org/c

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool naming

On Tue, October 25, 2011 09:42, adele@oracle.com wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a customer who wants to know what is the max characters allowed > in creating name for zpool, > > Are there any restrictions in using special characters? 255 characters. Try doing a 'man zpool': Creates a new stora

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Wed, October 19, 2011 08:15, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > Fsck can only fix known file system inconsistencies in file system > structures. Because there is no atomicity of operations in UFS and other > file systems it is possible that when you remove a file, your system can > crash between remo

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:35, Brian Wilson wrote: > Where ZFS doesn't have an fsck command - and that really used to bug me - it > does now have a -F option on zpool import. To me it's the same functionality > for my environment - the ability to try to roll back to a 'hopefully' good > state and

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Oct 18, 2011, at 20:35, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > In fact, I saw, actual work started on this task about a month ago. So it's > not just planned, it's really in the works. Now we're talking open source > timelines here, which means, "you'll get it when it's ready," and nobody > knows when th

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Oct 18, 2011, at 20:26, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > Yes, but when scrub encounters uncorrectable errors, it doesn't attempt to > correct them. Fsck will do things like recover lost files into the > lost+found directory, and stuff like that... You say "recover lost files" like you know that the

Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs diff" performance disappointing

On Mon, September 26, 2011 14:55, Jesus Cea wrote: [...] > real10m0.272s > user0m0.809s > sys 2m6.693s > """ > > 10 minutes to "diff" 7.55 GB is... disappointing. > > This machine uses a 2-mirror configurations, and there is no more > activity going on in the machine. ZPOOL version 29,

Re: [zfs-discuss] remove wrongly added device from zpool

On Mon, September 19, 2011 08:07, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > This one missing feature of ZFS, IMHO, does not result in "a long way for > zfs to go" in relation to netapp. I shut off my netapp 2 years ago in > favor of ZFS, because ZFS performs so darn much better, and has such > immensely greater

Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel 320 as ZIL?

On Mon, August 15, 2011 12:25, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > Perhaps this is it. Pulled the recommendation from Intel's Solid-State > Drive 320 Series in Server Storage Applications whitepaper. > > Section 4.1: [...] > On the Intel SSD 320 Series, the spare capacity reserved at the > factory is 7%

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sudden drop in disk performance - WD20EURS & 4k sectors to blame?

I've not done anything different this time from when I created the original (512b) pool. How would I check ashift? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/

[zfs-discuss] Sudden drop in disk performance - WD20EURS & 4k sectors to blame?

Hi all, first post to this mailing list so please forgive me if I miss something obvious. Earlier this year I went over 80% disk utilisation on my home server and saw performance start to degrade. I migrated from the old pool of 4 x 1TB WD RE2-GPs (raidz1) to a new pool made of 6 x 2TB WD EURS (

Re: [zfs-discuss] Adding mirrors to an existing zfs-pool]

ed by the ability to attach and detach arbitrary numbers of disks to mirrors. It makes upgrading mirrored disks very very safe, since I can perform the entire procedure without ever reducing redundancy below my starting point (using the classic attach new, resilver, detach old sequence, repeated

Re: [zfs-discuss] SSD vs "hybrid" drive - any advice?

tasks? "Processing" the request just means flagging the blocks, though, right? And the actual benefits only acrue if the garbage collection / block reshuffling background tasks get a chance to run? -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/Sn

Re: [zfs-discuss] [dtrace-discuss] dtrace nfs requests on a zfs filesystem

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:10 AM, wessels wrote: > I'm issuing the following statement on a ONNV_104 (I know a bit old > but very stable) NFS server: > # dtrace -n 'nfsv3:::op-read-start,nfsv3:::op-write-start > {@[probefunc,args[1]->noi_curpath]=count(); }' > > which works fine...most of the time

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to recover -- LUNs go offline, now permanent errors?

Cindy, I gave your suggestion a try. I did the zpool clear and then did another zpool scrub and all is happy now. Thank you for your help. David -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] How to recover -- LUNs go offline, now permanent errors?

Cindy, Thanks for the reply. I'll get that a try and then send an update. Thanks, David -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] How to recover -- LUNs go offline, now permanent errors?

e hex codes above. How do I interpret them? Can this pool be recovered, or basically how do I proceed? The system is Solaris 10 U9 with all recent patches. Thanks, David -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing

Re: [zfs-discuss] Encryption accelerator card recommendations.

On Tue, June 28, 2011 13:55, Fritz Wuehler wrote: >> Now compare that with the T-series stuff that also handles 3DES, RC4, >> RSA2048, DSA, DH, ECC, MD5, SHA1, SHA2, as well as a hardware RNG: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC_T2 >> http://blogs.oracle.com/BestPerf/entry/20100

Re: [zfs-discuss] Encryption accelerator card recommendations.[GPU acceleration of ZFS]

On Jun 27, 2011, at 22:03, Fred Liu wrote: > FYI There is another thread named -- " GPU acceleration of ZFS" in this > list to discuss the possibility to utilize the power of GPGPU. > I posted here: In a similar vein I recently came across SSLShader: http://shader.kaist.edu/sslshader/

Re: [zfs-discuss] Encryption accelerator card recommendations.

On Jun 27, 2011, at 18:32, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > On 06/27/11 15:24, David Magda wrote: >> Given the amount of transistors that are available nowadays I think >> it'd be simpler to just create a series of SIMD instructions right >> in/on general CPUs, and skip th

Re: [zfs-discuss] Encryption accelerator card recommendations.

On Jun 27, 2011, at 17:16, Erik Trimble wrote: > Think about how things were done with the i386 and i387. That's what I'm > after. With modern CPU buses like AMD & Intel support, plopping a > "co-processor" into another CPU socket would really, really help. Given the amount of transistors tha

Re: [zfs-discuss] Encryption accelerator card recommendations.

On Mon, June 27, 2011 15:24, Erik Trimble wrote: [...] > I'm always kind of surprised that there hasn't been a movement to create > standardized crypto commands, like the various FP-specific commands that > are part of MMX/SSE/etc. That way, most of this could be done in > hardware seamlessly. Th

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zpool metadata corruption from S10U9 to S11 express

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:26:38PM -0700, Cindy Swearingen wrote: > Hi David, > > I see some inconsistencies between the mirrored pool tank info below > and the device info that you included. > > 1. The zpool status for tank shows some remnants of log devices (?), &

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zpool metadata corruption from S10U9 to S11 express

On 6/22/11 10:28 PM, "Fajar A. Nugraha" wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 9:28 AM, David W. Smith wrote: >> When I tried out Solaris 11, I just exported the pool prior to the install of >> Solaris 11.  I was lucky in that I had mirrored the boot drive, so after I >&

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zpool metadata corruption from S10U9 to S11 express

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 06:32:49PM -0700, Daniel Carosone wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:49:27PM -0700, David W. Smith wrote: > > # /home/dws# zpool import > > pool: tank > > id: 13155614069147461689 > > state: FAULTED > > status: The pool metadata i

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zpool metadata corruption from S10U9 to S11 express

incompatibility between Solaris 10 and Solaris 11. I would have thought that Solaris 11 could import an older pool level. Any other insight on importing pools between these two versions of Solaris would be helpful. Thanks, David -- This message posted from opensolaris.org

[zfs-discuss] Zpool metadata corruption from S10U9 to S11 express

Thanks, David -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] Zpool metadata corruption from S10U9 to S11 express

happening would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS for Linux?

On Tue, June 14, 2011 08:15, Jim Klimov wrote: > Hello, > >A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop, > and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding > another server in his small quiet apartment or changing the > desktop OS. According to his research, there

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS receive checksum mismatch

On Jun 11, 2011, at 10:37, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: David Magda [mailto:dma...@ee.ryerson.ca] >> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 9:38 AM >> >> These parity files use a forward error correction-style system that can be >> used to perform data verification, a

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS receive checksum mismatch

On Jun 11, 2011, at 09:20, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > Parity is just a really simple form of error detection. It's not very > useful for error correction. If you look into error correction codes, > you'll see there are many other codes which would be more useful for the > purposes of zfs send da

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS receive checksum mismatch

On Jun 11, 2011, at 08:46, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > If you simply want to layer on some more FEC, there must be some standard > generic FEC utilities out there, right? > zfs send | fec > /dev/... > Of course this will inflate the size of the data stream somewhat, but > improves the relia

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS receive checksum mismatch

On Fri, June 10, 2011 07:47, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > #1 A single bit error causes checksum mismatch and then the whole data > stream is not receivable. I wonder if it would be worth adding a (toggleable?) forward error correction (FEC) [1] scheme to the 'zfs send' stream. Even if we're talki

Re: [zfs-discuss] Is another drive worth anything? [Summary]

On Jun 2, 2011, at 20:50, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > Also, if you have an SSD for cache device, you accelerate reads, and there > is absolutely no data risk. In the event of cache device failure, > performance degrades back to the "normal" level and everything continues > just fine. Dropping bac

Re: [zfs-discuss] Is another drive worth anything?

On May 31, 2011, at 19:00, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk >> >> Theoretically, you'll get a 50% read increase, but I doubt it'll be that >> high in >> practice. What about

[zfs-discuss] Intel Z68 chipset and SSD 311 ("Larson Creek")

The press embargo on Intel Z68 chipset has been lifted and so there's a bunch of press on it. One feature called Smart Response Technology (SRT) will sound familiar to users of ZFS: > Intel's SRT functions like an actual cache. Rather than caching individual > files, Intel focuses on frequently

Re: [zfs-discuss] Quick zfs send -i performance questions

MB; > are my expectation realistic or is it just because of my very budget > concious set up? If so, where's the bottleneck? In addition to issues others have mentiond, the way incremental send works, it follows the order the blocks were written in rather than disk order, so that can

Re: [zfs-discuss] just can't import

On Apr 11, 2011, at 17:54, Brandon High wrote: > I suspect that the minimum memory for most moderately sized pools is > over 16GB. There has been a lot of discussion regarding how much > memory each dedup'd block requires, and I think it was about 250-270 > bytes per block. 1TB of data (at max blo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Network video streaming [Was: Re: X4540 no next-gen product?]

2TB of RAM, though I believe real installations were using 512GB. Data got from the Thumpers to the streaming board over Ethernet, though. In big chunks -- 10MB maybe? (Been a while; I worked on the user interface level, but had little to do with the streaming hardware.) -- David Dyer-Benne

Re: [zfs-discuss] X4540 no next-gen product?

On Fri, April 8, 2011 10:06, Darren J Moffat wrote: >> They may be storage appliances, but the user can not put their own >> software on them. This limits the appliance to only the features that >> Oracle decides to put on it. > > Isn't that the very definition of an Appliance ? Yes, but the OP w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best practice for boot partition layout in ZFS

On Wed, April 6, 2011 11:29, Gary Mills wrote: > People forget (c), the ability to set different filesystem options on > /var. You might want to have `setuid=off' for improved security, for > example. Or better yet: exec=off,devices=off. Another handy one could be "compression=on" (or a even "gz

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS send/receive to Solaris/FBSD/OpenIndiana/Nexenta VM guest?

On Wed, April 6, 2011 10:51, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > I'm a big fan of rsync, in cronjobs or wherever. What it won't do is > properly preserve ZFS ACLs, and ZFS snapshots, though. I moved from using > rsync to using zfs send/receive for my backup scheme at home, and had >

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS send/receive to Solaris/FBSD/OpenIndiana/Nexenta VM guest?

or your VM to hold what you need, that seems a reasonable approach to me, but I haven't tried anything much like it, so my opinion is, if you're very lucky, maybe worth what you paid for it. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/Sna

Re: [zfs-discuss] spa_import_rootpool: error 22

On Thu, March 31, 2011 09:22, Thierry Delaitre wrote: > I've had a power kill on a server and the V880 cannot now mount the main > root filesystem. > > I can boot the server into single user mode from the network. > > However, how can i rectify the corrupted ZFS disk ? > > NOTICE: > spa_import_root

Re: [zfs-discuss] [illumos-Developer] zfs incremental send?

ocess seems to make the receiving pool unimportable. Possibly I could use recovery tricks to step back a TXG or two until I get something valid, and then manually remove the snapshots added to get back to the initial state, and then I could start the incremental again; in practice, I haven't made

Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10

On Mar 24, 2011, at 02:03, Michael DeMan wrote: > The only remaining question would be the remaining crufts of legal > disposition. I could for instance see NetApp or somebody try and sue > ixSystems, but I have a really, really rough time seeing Oracle/LarryEllison > suing the FreeBSD foundat

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and standard backup programs

On Wed, March 23, 2011 13:31, Linder, Doug wrote: > Toby Thain wrote: >> Linder, Doug wrote: >>> Warning] From: v...@hostname.ourdomain.com >>> "/directoryname" Time: 3/23/2011 >>> 3:02:25 AM >> /directoryname >>> Directory is a mount point to a dif

Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10

On Mar 22, 2011, at 21:09, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: > Seeing that userland programs for *Solaris and derivatives (GUI, > daemons, tools, etc) is usually late compared to bleeding-edge Linux > distros (e.g. Ubuntu), with no particular dedicated team working on > improvement there, I'm guessing the a

Re: [zfs-discuss] A resilver record?

On Mar 20, 2011, at 18:02, Ian Collins wrote: > I didn't intend to start an argument, I was just very surprised the resilver > took so long. ZFS is a relatively young file system, and it does a lot of things differently than what has been done in the past. Personally I think arguments / debates

Re: [zfs-discuss] A resilver record?

On Mar 20, 2011, at 14:24, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: >>> It all depends on the number of drives in the VDEV(s), traffic >>> patterns during resilver, speed VDEV fill, of drives etc. Still, >>> close to 6 days is a lot. Can you detail your configuration? >> >> How many times do we have to rehash

Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10

On Mar 20, 2011, at 14:33, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > I hear from reliable sources that Apple is not doing anything with ZFS, > so I would not look there for leadership. Given that one of the prominent (?) file system guys at Apple left to form his own ZFS company, I figured that was the case even

Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10

On Mar 20, 2011, at 09:26, Joerg Schilling wrote: > The long term acceptance for ZFS depends on how Oracle will behave past the > announced Solaris 11 is released. If they don't Opensource the related ZFS, > they will harm the future of ZFS. If they Opensource it again, there is still > a > pr

Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10

On Mar 18, 2011, at 21:16, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: >> I think we all feel the same pain with Oracle's purchase of Sun. >> >> FreeBSD that has commercial support for ZFS maybe? > > Fbsd currently has a very old zpool version, not suitable for running with > SLOGs, since if you lose it, you m

Re: [zfs-discuss] [OpenIndiana-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10

everal unpatched security holes, at this point.) -- David Brodbeck System Administrator, Linguistics University of Washington ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] dual protocal on one file system?

On Fri, March 18, 2011 08:28, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > From: David Magda [mailto:dma...@ee.ryerson.ca] >> #2 is fixed in OpenSolaris as of snv_129: >> >> The new limit is 1024--the same maximum number of groups as Windows >> supports. Unlikely that it will be back port

Re: [zfs-discuss] dual protocal on one file system?

On Thu, March 17, 2011 09:53, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: Paul Kraus [mailto:p...@kraus-haus.org] [...] >> 2. Unix / Solaris limitation of 16 / 32 group membership >> 3. ACL management (must be done on the Solaris side) and visibility >> 4. performance (especially with many small files) >> >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] GNU 'cp -p' can't work well with ZFS-based-NFS's ACL

On Wed, March 16, 2011 10:08, Fred Liu wrote: > Yeah. But we are on Linux NFS client. ;-( > > Is it doable to build SUN cp in Linux? Where can I find the source code? Are you using NFSv4? Also, what version of GNU coreutils are you using ('cp' is usually part of the "coreutils" package)? What dist

Re: [zfs-discuss] dual protocal on one file system?

On Mar 12, 2011, at 20:59, Tim Cook wrote: > 2011/3/12 Fred Liu > >> Tim, >> >> Thanks. >> >> Is there a mapping mechanism like what DataOnTap does to map the >> permission/acl between NIS/LDAP and AD? > > Yes. > http://www.unix.com/man-page/OpenSolaris/1m/idmap/ This appears to be only for

Re: [zfs-discuss] NTFS on NFS and iSCSI always generates small IO's

On Thu, March 10, 2011 13:04, wessels wrote: > And make sure you align your NTFS partition regardless off the > underlying storage. Windows 2003 and before DONT do this by default, 7 > and 2008 choose a default offset off 1Mb. But better check it in > advance with diskpart. Lastly format your NTFS

Re: [zfs-discuss] Good SLOG devices?

gigabit ethernet (through one switch; the boxes sit next to each other on a shelf over my desk). I'll do more research before spending money. But as a question of general theory, should a decent separate intent log device help for a single-user sequential write sequence in the 100MB to 1GB

Re: [zfs-discuss] Good SLOG devices?

On Tue, March 1, 2011 16:32, Rocky Shek wrote: > David, > > STEC/DataON ZeusRAM(Z4RZF3D-8UC-DNS) SSD now available for users in > channel. > > It is 8GB DDR3 RAM based SAS SSD protected by supercapacitor and NVRAM > 16GB. > > It is designed for ZFS ZI

Re: [zfs-discuss] Good SLOG devices?

On Tue, March 1, 2011 11:11, Khushil Dep wrote: > I'd back that. X25E's are great but also look at the STECH ZeusIOPS as > well as the new Intel's. STEC's products are not available to retail customers, only OEMs. (Unless something has changed recently, in which case a link would be useful.)

[zfs-discuss] ZFS Performance

Hi All, In reading the ZFS Best practices, I'm curious if this statement is still true about 80% utilization. from : http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >