Re: [zfs-discuss] [developer] Re: History of EPERM for unlink() of directories on ZFS?

On Jun 26, 2012, at 4:46 PM, Lionel Cons wrote: > On 25 June 2012 11:33, wrote: >> >> >> To be honest, I think we should also remove this from all other >> filesystems and I think ZFS was created this way because all modern >> filesystems do it that way. I agree with Casper here. This is a

Re: [zfs-discuss] [developer] History of EPERM for unlink() of directories on ZFS?

() on directories. I can't imagine why you'd *ever* want to support unlink() of a *directory* -- what's the use case for it anyway (outside of filesystem repair)? Garrett D'Amore garr...@damore.org On Jun 25, 2012, at 2:23 AM, Lionel Cons wrote: > Does someone know the histor

Re: [zfs-discuss] making network configuration sticky in nexenta core/napp-it

put the configuration in /etc/hostname.if0 (where if0 is replaced by the name of your interface, such as /etc/hostname.e1000g0) Without an IP address in such a static file, the system will default to DHCP and hence override other settings. - Garrett On Jan 10, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Eugen

Re: [zfs-discuss] Any rhyme or reason to disk dev names?

On Dec 21, 2011, at 3:14 AM, James C. McPherson wrote: > On 21/12/11 05:58 PM, Matthew R. Wilson wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am curious to know if there is an easy way to guess or identify the >> device names of disks. Previously the /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0 system made sense >> to me... I had a SATA cont

Re: [zfs-discuss] SATA hardware advice

On Dec 19, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Hung-Sheng Tsao (Lao Tsao 老曹) Ph.D. wrote: > AFAIK, most ZFS based storage appliance are move to SAS with 7200 rpm or 15k > rpm > most SSD are SATA and are connecting to on bd SATA with IO chips Most *cheap* SSDs are SATA. But if you want to use them in a cluster

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS not starting

You have just learned the hard way that dedup is *highly* toxic if misused. If you have a backup of your data, then you should delete the *pool*. Trying to destroy the dataset (the zfs level filesystem) will probably never succeed unless you have it located on an SSD or you have an enormous am

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

Generally, there should not be "corruption", only a roll-back to a previous state. *HOWEVER*, its possible that an application which has state outside of the filesystem (such as effects on network peers, or even state written to *other* filesystems) will encounter a consistency problem as the a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Couple of questions about ZFS on laptops

On Nov 9, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Francois Dion wrote: > Some laptops have pc card and expresscard slots, and you can get an adapter > for sd card, so you could set up your os non mirrored and just set up home on > a pair of sd cards. Something like > http://www.amazon.com/Sandisk-SDAD109A11-Digital-

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

On Nov 8, 2011, at 6:38 AM, Evaldas Auryla wrote: > Hi all, > > 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 recommendatio

Re: [zfs-discuss] File contents changed with no ZFS error

You're using an *old* version of both OpenSolaris and zpool. There have been a few corruption bugs fixed since then. I'd recommend updating. - Garrett On Oct 22, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Robert Watzlavick wrote: > I've noticed something strange over the past few months with four files on my

Re: [zfs-discuss] repair [was: about btrfs and zfs]

On Oct 19, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Oct 18, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > >>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook >>> >>> I had and have redundant storage, it has *NEVER* automatical

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

I'd argue that from a *developer* point of view, an fsck tool for ZFS might well be useful. Isn't that what zdb is for? :-) But ordinary administrative users should never need something like this, unless they have encountered a bug in ZFS itself. (And bugs are as likely to exist in the checke

Re: [zfs-discuss] All (pure) SSD pool rehash

On Sep 28, 2011, at 8:44 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com] >> >> Also, the default settings for the resilver throttle are set for HDDs. For > SSDs, >> it is a >> good idea to change the throttle to be more aggressive. > > You mean... > Be mor

Re: [zfs-discuss] Does the zpool cache file affect import?

On 08/30/2011 04:59 AM, "Hung-Sheng Tsao (Lao Tsao 老曹) Ph.D." wrote: IMHO, you need to know how to recover the Zpool if the data/metadata get corrupt due to import by two hosts may be things are improved for zfs recently. you design cluster by certain rules, hope that all SA(not just you) wil

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs destory snapshot takes an hours.

also, snapshot destroys are much slower with older releases such as 134. i recommend an upgrade. but an upgrade will not help much if you are using dedup. -- Garrett D'Amore On Aug 10, 2011, at 8:32 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] Entire client hangs every few seconds

This is actually a recently known problem, and a fix for it is in the 3.1 version, which should be available any minute now, if it isn't already available. The problem has to do with some allocations which are sleeping, and jobs in the ZFS subsystem get backed behind some other work. If you have

Re: [zfs-discuss] Pure SSD Pool

nows about (because it uses overallocation for example). TRIM support is still something we want in ZFS, for a variety of reasons, including SSD performance. I think you can expect to hear more on this front before too much longer, so stay tuned. -- Garrett D'Amore On Jul 12, 2011, at

Re: [zfs-discuss] write cache partial-disk pools (was Server with 4 drives, how to configure ZFS?)

For SSD we have code in illumos that disables disksort. Ultimately, we believe that the cost of disksort is in the noise for performance. -- Garrett D'Amore On Jun 20, 2011, at 8:38 AM, "Andrew Gabriel" wrote: > Richard Elling wrote: >> On Jun 19, 2011, at 6:04

Re: [zfs-discuss] JBOD recommendation for ZFS usage

Dunno about Germany, but LSI and DataON both have offerings. (The LSI units are probably going fast, as LSI exits that business having sold that unit to NetApp.) -- Garrett D'Amore On May 30, 2011, at 10:08 AM, "Thomas Nau" wrote: > Dear all > > Sorry if it

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta

I actually didn't know that their meetings were totally open. I'm more familiar with IEEE, T10, and similar bodies which are most definitely not open. -- Garrett D'Amore On May 25, 2011, at 6:12 PM, "Bob Friesenhahn" wrote: > On Wed, 25 May 2011, Garrett

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta

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: > "Garr

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta

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: >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Solaris vs FreeBSD question

capabilities)? -- Garrett D'Amore On May 18, 2011, at 2:48 PM, "Paul Kraus" wrote: > >Over the past few months I have seen mention of FreeBSD a couple > time in regards to ZFS. My question is how stable (reliable) is ZFS on > this platform ? > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] 350TB+ storage solution

Actually it is 100 or less, i.e. a 10 msec delay. -- Garrett D'Amore On May 16, 2011, at 11:13 AM, "Richard Elling" wrote: > On May 16, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Brandon High wrote: >> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Richard Elling >> wrote: >>> As a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Summary: Dedup and L2ARC memory requirements

Just another data point. The ddt is considered metadata, and by default the arc will not allow more than 1/4 of it to be used for metadata. Are you still sure it fits? Erik Trimble wrote: >On 5/7/2011 6:47 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >>> See below. Right around 400,000 blocks, dedup is su

Re: [zfs-discuss] Summary: Dedup and L2ARC memory requirements

It is tunable, I don't remember the exact tunable name... Arc_metadata_limit or some such. -- Garrett D'Amore On May 8, 2011, at 7:37 AM, "Edward Ned Harvey" wrote: >> From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com] >> >> Just another data poi

Re: [zfs-discuss] Extremely Slow ZFS Performance

e > to http://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=2200577&tstart=0. > > > > On May 4, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > > My first thought is dedup... perhaps you've got dedup enabled and > > the DDT no longer fits

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

We have customers using dedup with lots of vm images... in one extreme case they are getting dedup ratios of over 200:1! You don't need dedup or sparse files for zero filling. Simple zle compression will eliminate those for you far more efficiently and without needing massive amounts of ram.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 09:02 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com] > > > > We have customers using dedup with lots of vm images... in one extreme > > case they are getting dedup ratios of over 200:1! > > I assu

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Going forward after Oracle - Let's get organized, let's get started.

On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 08:56 +1200, Ian Collins wrote: > On 04/10/11 05:41 AM, Chris Forgeron wrote: > > I see your point, but you also have to understand that sometimes too many > > helpers/opinions are a bad thing. There is a set "core" of ZFS developers > > who make a lot of this move forward,

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Going forward after Oracle - Let's get organized, let's get started.

There is ZFS development happening outside of Oracle. Many of the active ZFS developers at a *variety* of organizations are collaborating within the illumos community using a private e-mail list much like an standards body Working Group (we even call ourselves the ZFS Working Group). And not all

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

On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 14:56 -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote: > On 3/18/2011 3:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > > c) NCP 4 is still 5-6 months away. We're still developing it. > > By the time I do some initial evaluation, then some prototyping, I don't > anti

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

Newer versions of FreeBSD have newer ZFS code. That said, ZFS on FreeBSD is kind of a 2nd class citizen still. FreeBSD still gives equal (or higher) priority to ufs, and so some of the changes in Solaris and derivatives (illumos) to make certain things like NFS, CIFS, and COMSTAR/iSCSI work bette

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

Thanks for thinking about us, Paul. A few quick thoughts: a) Nexenta Core Platform is a bare-bones OS. No GUI, in other words (no X11.) It might well suit you. b) NCP 3 will not have an upgrade path to NCP 4. Its simply too much change in the underlying packaging. c) NCP 4 is still 5-6 month

Re: [zfs-discuss] [illumos-Developer] ZFS spare disk usage issue

On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 18:03 +0100, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > So should I post a bug, or is there one there already? > > Btw, I can't reach http://bugs.illumos.org/ - it times out Try again in a few minutes... the server just got rebooted. - Garrett > > roy > > - Original Messag

Re: [zfs-discuss] Format returning bogus controller info

On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 21:02 +0100, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > > Last I checked, it didn't help much. IMHO we need a driver that can > > > display the drives in the order they're plugged in. Like Windoze. > > > Like Linux. Like FreeBSD. I really don't understand what should be > > > so hard to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Good SLOG devices?

The PCIe based ones are good (typically they are quite fast), but check the following first: a) do you need an SLOG at all? Some workloads (asynchronous ones) will never benefit from an SLOG. b) form factor. at least one manufacturer uses a PCIe card which is not compliant with

Re: [zfs-discuss] SIL3114 and sparc solaris 10

On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 13:16 -0500, Mauricio Tavares wrote: > hardware. > > > > I +1 the suggestion to find something more modern if at all possible. > > > Oh, just lovely. What would you suggest instead? I mean, besides > canning the machine altogether ;) LSI have some adapters than can do bo

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS dedup success stories (take two)

On 01/31/11 04:48 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: As I've said here on the list a few times earlier, the last on the thread 'ZFS not usable (was ZFS Dedup question)', I've been doing some rather thorough testing on zfs dedup, and as you can see from the posts, it wasn't very satisfactory. The doc

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and TRIM

On 01/31/11 01:09 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 03:41:52PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Brandon High wrote: On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: What is the status of ZFS support for TRIM? I believe it's been supported

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and L2ARC memory requirements?

On 01/31/11 06:40 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: - Original Message - Even *with* an L2ARC, your memory requirements are *substantial*, because the L2ARC itself needs RAM. 8 GB is simply inadequate for your test. With 50TB storage, and 1TB if L2ARC, with no dedup, what amou

Re: [zfs-discuss] VDI, ZFS and comstar

I'm not personally familiar with with VDI, but it feels like the VDI bits are trying to run pkginfo on a NexentaStor target, which is a syntax error. I'm not sure what the fix for that would be. - Garrett On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 09:37 +, Thierry Delaitre wrote: > Hello, > > I’ve got V

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS dedup success stories?

I'm not sure about *docs*, but my rough estimations: Assume 1TB of actual used storage. Assume 64K block/slab size. (Not sure how realistic that is -- it depends totally on your data set.) Assume 300 bytes per DDT entry. So we have (1024^4 / 65536) * 300 = 5033164800 or about 5GB RAM for one TB

Re: [zfs-discuss] Changed ACL behavior in snv_151 ?

We are working on a change to illumos (and NexentaStor) to revive acl_mode... lots and lots of people have had very bad experiences as a result of that particular change. - Garrett On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 07:32 +, Ryan John wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Frank Lahm [mai

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On 01/ 8/11 10:43 AM, Stephan Budach wrote: Am 08.01.11 18:33, schrieb Edward Ned Harvey: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Garrett D'Amore When you purchase NexentaStor from a top-tier Nexenta Hardware Partner, you

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On 01/ 6/11 05:28 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: Khushil Dep [mailto:khushil@gmail.com] I've deployed large SAN's on both SuperMicro 825/826/846 and Dell R610/R710's and I've not found any issues so far. I always make a point of installing Intel chipset NIC's on the DELL's and disabling

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On 01/ 4/11 11:48 PM, Tim Cook wrote: On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Garrett D'Amore <mailto:garr...@nexenta.com>> wrote: On 01/ 4/11 09:15 PM, Tim Cook wrote: On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Garrett D'Amore mailto:garr...@nexenta.com>> wrote:

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On 01/ 3/11 05:08 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: On 12/26/10 05:40 AM, Tim Cook wrote: On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Richard Elling mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com>> wrote: There are more people outside of Oracle developing for ZFS than inside Oracle. This has been true for so

Re: [zfs-discuss] stupid ZFS question - floating point operations

] Sent: Thu 12/23/2010 1:32 AM To: Garrett D'Amore Cc: Erik Trimble; Jerry Kemp; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] stupid ZFS question - floating point operations On 22/12/2010 20:27, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > That said, some operations -- and cryptographic ones

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for 3.5" SSD for ZIL

We should get the reformatter(s) ported to illumos/solaris, if source is available. Something to consider. - Garrett -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org on behalf of Erik Trimble Sent: Wed 12/22/2010 10:36 PM To: Christopher George Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris

Re: [zfs-discuss] stupid ZFS question - floating point operations

Generally, ZFS does not use floating point. And further, use of floating point in the kernel is exceptionally rare. The kernel does not save floating point context automatically, which means that code that uses floating point needs to take special care to make sure any context from userland is

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?

We have ZFS version 28. Whether we ever get another open source update of ZFS from *Oracle* is at this point doubtful. However, I will point out that there are a lot of former Oracle engineers, including both inventors of ZFS and many of the people who have worked on it over the years, who ar

Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications

On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 09:23 +1200, Ian Collins wrote: > >> > > There is no common C++ ABI. So you get into compatibility concerns > > between code built with different compilers (like Studio vs. g++). > > Fail. > > > > Which is why we have extern "C". Just about any Solaris driver, li

Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications

On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 15:48 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > Since 1996, all of my professional programming work (for products) has > been done in C++. Most of my open source work has been done in C. > There should be little

Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications

On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 03:26 +0700, "C. Bergström" wrote: > Ian Collins wrote: > > On 08/20/10 07:48 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 20:14 +0100, Daniel Taylor wrote: > >> > >>> On 19 Aug 2010, at 19:42, Garrett D'

Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications

On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 07:58 +1200, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/20/10 07:48 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 20:14 +0100, Daniel Taylor wrote: > > > >> On 19 Aug 2010, at 19:42, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications

On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 20:14 +0100, Daniel Taylor wrote: > On 19 Aug 2010, at 19:42, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > Out of interest, what language do you recommend? Depends on the job -- I'm a huge fan of choosing the right tool for the job. I just think C++ tries to be jack of a

Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications

On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 21:25 +1200, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/19/10 08:51 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Ian Collins wrote: > > > > > >> A quick test with a C++ application I'm working with which does a lot of > >> string and container manipulation shows it > >> runs about 10% slower in 64 bit

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

All of this is entirely legal conjecture, by people who aren't lawyers, for issues that have not been tested by court and are clearly subject to interpretation. Since it no longer is relevant to the topic of the list, can we please either take the discussion offline, or agree to just let the topic

Re: [zfs-discuss] Solaris startup script location

On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 01:20 -0700, Alxen4 wrote: > Thanks...Now I think I understand... > > Let me summarize it andd let me know if I'm wrong. > > Disabling ZIL converts all synchronous calls to asynchronous which makes ZSF > to report data acknowledgment before it actually was written to stable

Re: [zfs-discuss] Solaris startup script location

On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 00:49 -0700, Alxen4 wrote: > Any argumentation why ? Because a RAMDISK defeats the purpose of a ZIL, which is to provide a fast *stable storage* for data being written. If you are using a RAMDISK, you are not getting any non-volatility guarantees that the ZIL is supposed to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Solaris startup script location

On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 00:16 -0700, Alxen4 wrote: > Is there any way run start-up script before non-root pool is mounted ? > > For example I'm trying to use ramdisk as ZIL device (ramdiskadm ) > So I need to create ramdisk before actual pool is mounted otherwise it > complains that log device is m

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

linking is probably going to be difficult. - Garrett On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 17:07 -0400, Miles Nordin wrote: > >>>>> "gd" == Garrett D'Amore writes: > > >> Joerg is correct that CDDL code can legally live right > >> along

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 14:04 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Ross Walker wrote: > > > > And there lies the problem, you need the agreement of all copyright > > holders in a GPL project to change it's licensing terms and some > > just will not budge. > > Joerg is correct that

Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications

It can be as simple as impact on the cache. 64-bit programs tend to be bigger, and so they have a worse effect on the i-cache. Unless your program does something that can inherently benefit from 64-bit registers, or can take advantage of the richer instruction set that is available to amd64 progr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

> > see, that's good, and is a realistic future scenario for ZFS, AFAICT: > there can be a branch that's safe to collaborate on, which cannot go > into Solaris 11 and cannot be taken proprietary by Nexenta, either. In fact, we are in the process of creating a non-profit foundation for Illumos w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 08:52 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:48:31AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Ray Van Dolson wrote: > > > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > > > > dual-licensed BTRFS. > > > > > > Well, Oracle obviously would want btr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

Any code can become abandonware; where it effectively bitrots into oblivion. For either ZFS or BTRFS (or any other filesystem) to survive, there have to be sufficiently skilled developers with an interest in developing and maintaining it (whether the interest is commercial or recreational). Hones

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS diaspora (was Opensolaris is apparently dead)

8.) EON NAS or other OpenSolaris based distros. They don't seem to > have a bright future in store as they're derivatives of OpenSolaris, > unless they are able to transition to being based on IllumOS (which is > conditional on how IllumOS progresses.) On the other hand, it m

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 07:38 -0700, Richard Jahnel wrote: > FWIW I'm making a significant bet that Nexenta plus Illumos will be the > future for the space in which I operate. > > I had already begun the process of migrating my 134 boxes over to Nexenta > before Oracle's cunning plans became known

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 08/14/10 03:32 PM, Mark Bennett wrote: That's a very good question actually. I would think that COMSTAR would stay because its used by the Fishworks appliance... however, COMSTAR is a competitive advantage for DIY storage solutions. Maybe they will rip it out of S11 and make it an add-on or so

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 08/14/10 09:36 AM, Paul B. Henson wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Tim Cook wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ "Oracle will spend *more* money on OpenSolaris development than Sun did." At least, as a Sun customer, that's the line they were trying to fe

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 08/13/10 09:02 PM, "C. Bergström" wrote: Erast wrote: On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 21:39 -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 17:53 -0400, Saxon, Will wrote: > >> > >> I think there may be very good reason to use iSCSI, if you're limited > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 17:53 -0400, Saxon, Will wrote: > > I think there may be very good reason to use iSCSI, if you're limited > to gigabit but need to be able to handle higher throughput for a > single client. I may be wrong, but I believe iSCSI to/from a single > initiator can take advantage of

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 19:54 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: Garrett D'Amore [mailto:garr...@nexenta.com] > > > > Fundamentally, my recommendation is to choose NFS if your clients can > > use it. You'll get a lot of potential advantages in the

Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS performance?

Fundamentally, my recommendation is to choose NFS if your clients can use it. You'll get a lot of potential advantages in the NFS/zfs integration, so better performance. Plus you can serve multiple clients, etc. The only reason to use iSCSI is when you don't have a choice, IMO. You should only

Re: [zfs-discuss] L2ARC and ZIL on same SSD?

On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 09:42 -0700, Orvar Korvar wrote: > Are there any drawbacks to partition a SSD in two parts and use L2ARC on one > partition, and ZIL on the other? Any thoughts? Its probably a reasonable approach. The ZIL can be fairly small... only about 8 GB is probably sufficient for mo

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool throughput: snv 134 vs 138 vs 143

On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 02:21 -0400, Richard Lowe wrote: > I built in the normal fashion, with the CBE compilers > (cc: Sun C 5.9 SunOS_i386 Patch 124868-10 2009/04/30), and 12u1 lint. > > I'm not subscribed to zfs-discuss, but have you established whether the > problematic build is DEBUG? (the bits

Re: [zfs-discuss] CPU requirements for zfs performance

On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 17:12 +0200, Saso Kiselkov wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > If you plan on using it as a storage server for multimedia data > (movies), don't even bother considering compression, as most media files > already come heavily compressed. Dedup might st

Re: [zfs-discuss] slog/L2ARC on a hard drive and not SSD?

On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 07:56 -0700, Hernan F wrote: > Hi, > Out of pure curiosity, I was wondering, what would happen if one tries to use > a regular 7200RPM (or 10K) drive as slog or L2ARC (or both)? > > I know these are designed with SSDs in mind, and I know it's possible to use > anything you

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool throughput: snv 134 vs 138 vs 143

Your config makes me think this is an atypical ZFS configuration. As a result, I'm not as concerned. But I think the multithread/concurrency may be the biggest concern here. Perhaps the compilers are doing something different that causes significant cache issues. (Perhaps the compilers themsel

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool throughput: snv 134 vs 138 vs 143

So the next question is, lets figure out what richlowe did differently. ;-) - Garrett ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool throughput: snv 134 vs 138 vs 143

On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 17:40 -0700, Chad Cantwell wrote: > fyi, everyone, I have some more info here. in short, rich lowe's 142 works > correctly (fast) on my hardware, while both my compilations (snv 143, snv 144) > and also the nexanta 3 rc2 kernel (134 with backports) are horribly slow. The ide

Re: [zfs-discuss] Performance advantages of spool with 2x raidz2 vdev"s vs. Single vdev

On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 12:06 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > > > With those same 14 drives, you can get 7x the performance instead of 2x > > the performance by using mirrors instead of raidz2. > > This is of course co

Re: [zfs-discuss] Performance advantages of spool with 2x raidz2 vdev"s vs. Single vdev

On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 01:28 -0700, tomwaters wrote: > Hi guys, I am about to reshape my data spool and am wondering what > performance diff. I can expect from the new config. Vs. The old. > > The old config. Is a pool of a single vdev of 8 disks raidz2. > The new pool config is 2vdev's of 7 disk

Re: [zfs-discuss] Debunking the dedup memory myth

On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 16:18 -0700, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > > I would imagine that if it's read-mostly, it's a win, but > otherwise it costs more than it saves. Even more conventional > compression tends to be more resource intensive than decompression... > > What I'm wondering is when dedu

Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended RAM for ZFS on various platforms

On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:57 -0700, Michael Johnson wrote: > us, why do you say I'd be able to get away with less RAM in FreeBSD > (as compared to NexentaStor, I'm assuming)? I don't know tons about > the OSs in > question; is FreeBSD just leaner in general? Compared to Solaris, in my estimatio

Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended RAM for ZFS on various platforms

1GB isn't enough for a real system. 2GB is a bare minimum. If you're going to use dedup, plan on a *lot* more. I think 4 or 8 GB are good for a typical desktop or home NAS setup. With FreeBSD you may be able to get away with less. (Probably, in fact.) Btw, instead of RAIDZ2, I'd recommend sim

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS bug - CVE-2010-2392

On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 13:47 -0500, Dave Pooser wrote: > Looks like the bug affects through snv_137. Patches are available from the > usual location-- for OpenSolaris. Got a CR number for this? (Or a link to where I can find out about the CVE number?)

Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I clean up corrupted files from zpool status -v?

010-07-15 at 10:12 -0700, Kris Kasner wrote: > Today at 09:44, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > > > > Those corrupt files are corrupt forever. Until they are removed. I > > recommend doing a scrub. There are probably other experts here > > (Richard?) who can suggest

Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I clean up corrupted files from zpool status -v?

an catch it correctly. Those corrupt files are corrupt forever. Until they are removed. I recommend doing a scrub. There are probably other experts here (Richard?) who can suggest a permanent fix. - Garrett > > Thanks again. > > --Kris > > Today at 16:15, Garrett

Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...

On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 11:48 +0900, BM wrote: > > But hey, why to fork ZFS and mess with a stale Solaris code, if the > entire future of Solaris is a closed proprietary payware anyway? And > opposite to ZFS, we have totally free BTRFS that has been moved to the > kernel.org and is *free* and is fo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...

On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:59 -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > > Once the code is in the open, it'll remain there. To quote Cory Doctorow > > on this, it's easy release the source of a project, it's like adding ink > > to your swimming pool, but it'

Re: [zfs-discuss] Encryption?

On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 01:06 -0700, Peter Taps wrote: > > Btw, if you want a commercially supported and maintained product, have > > you looked at NexentaStor? Regardless of what happens with OpenSolaris, > > we aren't going anywhere. (Full disclosure: I'm a Nexenta Systems > > employee. :-) > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...

On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:51 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us] > > > > > A private license, with support and indemnification from Sun, would > > > shield Apple from any lawsuit from Netapp. > > > > The patent holder is not compelled > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I clean up corrupted files from zpool status -v?

Hey Kris (glad to see someone from my QCOM days!): It should automatically clear itself when you replace the disk. Right now you're still degraded since you don't have full redundancy. - Garrett On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 16:10 -0700, Kris Kasner wrote: > Hi Folks.. > > I have a system tha

Re: [zfs-discuss] Encryption?

On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 12:55 -0700, Brandon High wrote: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Garrett D'Amore > wrote: > Btw, if you want a commercially supported and maintained > product, have > you looked at NexentaStor? Regardless

Re: [zfs-discuss] Encryption?

On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 09:41 -0700, Michael Johnson wrote: > Nikola M wrote: > >Freddie Cash wrote: > >> You definitely want to do the ZFS bits from within FreeBSD. > >Why not using ZFS in OpenSolaris? At least it has most stable/tested > >implementation and also the newest one if needed? > > > I'

Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...

On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 17:05 +0100, Andrew Gabriel wrote: > Linder, Doug wrote: > > Out of sheer curiosity - and I'm not disagreeing with you, just wondering - > > how does ZFS make money for Oracle when they don't charge for it? Do you > > think it's such an important feature that it's a big fac

  1   2   >