On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Nikola M. wrote:
> I think site: Phoronix.com already did comparisons with ZFS under several
> platforms and other (Linux) file systems without sweat.
with single disk configuration no less (er, more) ;)
You may want to check this instead: http://www.zfsbuild.com
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Oskar wrote:
> I know that this is not necessarily the right forum, but the FreeBSD forum
> haven't been able to help me...
>
> I recently updated my FreeBSD 8.0 RC3 to 8.1 and after the update I can't
> import my zpool. My computer says that no such pool exists
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 3:18 AM, sridhar surampudi
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what is the right way to check versions of zfs and zpool ??
>
> I am writing piece of code which call zfs command line further. Before
> actually initiating and going ahead I wan to check the kind of version zfs
> and zpool pres
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Gary Gendel wrote:
> I moved my home directories to a new disk and then mounted the disk using a
> legacy mount point over /export/home. Here is the output of the zfs list:
>
> NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
> rpool 55.8G 11.1G
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Tom Bird wrote:
> All said and done though, we will have to live with snv_134's bugs from now
> on, or perhaps I could try Sol 10.
>
or OpenIllumos. Or Nexenta. Or FreeBSD. Or .
--
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
_
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> In any case -- any thoughts on whether or not I'll be helping anything
> if I change my slog slice starting cylinder to be 4k aligned even
> though slice 0 isn't?
>
some people claims that due to how zfs works, there will be
performance hit
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Darin Perusich
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I'm sure this has been discussed previously but I haven't been able to find an
> answer to this. I've added another raidz1 vdev to an existing storage pool and
> the increased available storage isn't reflected in the 'zfs list
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Mohammed Sadiq wrote:
> Hi
>
> Is it recommended to do scrub while the filesystem is mounted .
yes
> How
> frequently do we have to do scrub and at what circumstances.
>
some people say weekly, some other monthly, some other, like myself,
whenever remember to. Us
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Michael Johnson
wrote:
> I'm planning on running FreeBSD in VirtualBox (with a Linux host) and giving
> it raw disk access to four drives, which I plan to configure as a raidz2
> volume.
> On top of that, I'm considering using encryption. I understand that ZFS
>
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:59 PM, zfsnoob4 wrote:
> "It's not easy to make Solaris slices on the boot drive."
>
> As I am just realizing. The installer does not have any kind of partition
> software.
>
> I have a linux boot disc and I am contemplating using gparted to resize the
> win partition to
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Sunil wrote:
> ouch! My apologies! I did not understand what you were trying to say.
>
> I was gearing towards:
>
> 1. Using the newer 1TB in the eventual RAIDZ. Newer hardware typically means
> (slightly) faster access times and sequential throughput.
> 2. Getti
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> And lose my existing data on those 2 500GB disks?
>>
>>
>
> Copy it back form the temporary pool, you are replacing your existing pool,
> aren't you? So you'll loose the data on it regardless.
>
>> Please, at least read the post before reply
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:34 PM, taemun wrote:
> A pool with a 4-wide raidz2 is a completely nonsensical idea. It has the
> same amount of accessible storage as two striped mirrors. And would be
> slower in terms of IOPS, and be harder to upgrade in the future (you'd need
> to keep adding four dri
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
> IMHO, what matters is that pretty much everything from the disk controller
> to the CPU and network interface is advertised in power-of-2 terms and disks
> sit alone using power-of-10. And students are taught that computers work
> with bit
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> Up until 5 years ago (or so), GigaByte meant a power of 2 to EVERYONE, not
> just us techies. I would hardly call 40+ years of using the various
> giga/mega/kilo prefixes as a power of 2 in computer science as
> non-authoritative. In fact,
15 matches
Mail list logo
