On Sep 9, 2009, at 9:29 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 21:30 +, Will Murnane wrote:
Some hours later, here I am again:
scrub: scrub in progress for 18h24m, 100.00% done, 0h0m to go
Any suggestions?
Let it run for another day.
A pool on a build server I manage takes ab
On Aug 14, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Peter Schow wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 05:02:46PM -0600, Louis-Fr?d?ric Feuillette
wrote:
I saw this question on another mailing list, and I too would like to
know. And I have a couple questions of my own.
== Paraphrased from other list ==
Does anyone have a
On Jul 4, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
This brings me to the absurd conclusion that the system must be
rebooted immediately prior to each use.
see Phil's later email .. an export/import of the pool or a remount of
the filesystem should clear the page cache - with mmap'd files
On Jul 4, 2009, at 12:03 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
% ./diskqual.sh
c1t0d0 130 MB/sec
c1t1d0 130 MB/sec
c2t202400A0B83A8A0Bd31 13422 MB/sec
c3t202500A0B83A8A0Bd31 13422 MB/sec
c4t600A0B80003A8A0B096A47B4559Ed0 191 MB/sec
c4t600A0B80003A8A0B096E47B456DAd0 192 MB/sec
c4t600A0B80003A8A0B00
i've seen a problem where periodically a 'zfs mount -a' and sometimes
a 'zpool import ' can create what appears to be a race condition
on nested mounts .. that is .. let's say that i have:
FS mountpoint
pool/export
pool/fs1
On Mar 6, 2009, at 8:58 AM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Jim Dunham wrote:
ZFS the filesystem is always on disk consistent, and ZFS does
maintain filesystem consistency through coordination between the
ZPL (ZFS POSIX Layer) and the ZIL (ZFS Intent Log). Unfortunately
for SNDR, ZFS caches a lot o
not quite .. it's 16KB at the front and 8MB back of the disk (16384
sectors) for the Solaris EFI - so you need to zero out both of these
of course since these drives are <1TB you i find it's easier to format
to SMI (vtoc) .. with format -e (choose SMI, label, save, validate -
then choose EFI
On Jul 11, 2008, at 4:59 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone tested a ZFS file system with at least 100 million +
>> files?
>> What were the performance characteristics?
>
> I think that there are more issues with file fragmentation over a long
> period of time than the sheer number of
On Apr 9, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Ross wrote:
>>
>> Well the first problem is that USB cables are directional, and you
>> don't have the port you need on any standard motherboard. That
>
> Thanks for that info. I did not know that.
>
>> Adding iSCSI suppor
On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
>>
>> in that case .. try fixing the ARC size .. the dynamic resizing on
>> the ARC
>> can be less than optimal IMHO
>
> Is a 16GB ARC size not considered
On Mar 20, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Mario Goebbels wrote:
>
>>> Similarly, read block size does not make a
>>> significant difference to the sequential read speed.
>>
>> Last time I did a simple bench using dd, supplying the record size as
>> blocksize to it
On Mar 14, 2008, at 3:28 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
> What's the best way to backup a zfs filesystem to tape, where the size
> of the filesystem is larger than what can fit on a single tape?
> ufsdump handles this quite nicely. Is there a similar backup program
> for zfs? Or a general tape manageme
On Mar 1, 2008, at 7:22 PM, Roch Bourbonnais wrote:
> That's not entirely accurate. I believe ZFS does lead to
> bdev_strategy being called and io:::start
> will fire for ZFS I/Os. The problem is that a ZFS I/O can be
> servicing a number of ZFS operations on a
> number of different files (whi
On Mar 1, 2008, at 4:14 PM, Bill Shannon wrote:
> Ok, that's much better! At least I'm getting output when I touch
> files
> on zfs. However, even though zpool iostat is reporting activity, the
> above program isn't showing any file accesses when the system is idle.
>
> Any ideas?
assuming th
On Mar 1, 2008, at 3:41 AM, Bill Shannon wrote:
> Running just plain "iosnoop" shows accesses to lots of files, but none
> on my zfs disk. Using "iosnoop -d c1t1d0" or "iosnoop -m /export/
> home/shannon"
> shows nothing at all. I tried /usr/demo/dtrace/iosnoop.d too, still
> nothing.
hi Bil
On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:36 AM, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> As much as ZFS is revolutionary, it is far away from being the
> 'ultimate file system', if it doesn't know how to handle event-
> driven snapshots (I don't like the word), backups, versioning. As
> long as a high-level system utility needs to
On Dec 29, 2007, at 2:33 AM, Jonathan Loran wrote:
> Hey, here's an idea: We snapshot the file as it exists at the time of
> the mv in the old file system until all referring file handles are
> closed, then destroy the single file snap. I know, not easy to
> implement, but that is the correct b
On Dec 6, 2007, at 00:03, Anton B. Rang wrote:
>> what are you terming as "ZFS' incremental risk reduction"?
>
> I'm not Bill, but I'll try to explain.
>
> Compare a system using ZFS to one using another file system -- say,
> UFS, XFS, or ext3.
>
> Consider which situations may lead to data los
apologies in advance for prolonging this thread .. i had considered
taking this completely offline, but thought of a few people at least
who might find this discussion somewhat interesting .. at the least i
haven't seen any mention of Merkle trees yet as the nerd in me yearns
for
On Dec 5,
On Dec 5, 2007, at 17:50, can you guess? wrote:
>> my personal-professional data are important (this is
>> my valuation, and it's an assumption you can't
>> dispute).
>
> Nor was I attempting to: I was trying to get you to evaluate ZFS's
> incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if yo
On Nov 10, 2007, at 23:16, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>
>> As the fsid is created when the file system is created it will be the
>> same when you mount it on a different NFS server. Why change it?
>>
>> Or are you trying to match two different file systems? Then you also
>> ha
Hey Bill:
what's an object here? or do we have a mapping between "objects" and
block pointers?
for example a zdb -bb might show:
th37 # zdb -bb rz-7
Traversing all blocks to verify nothing leaked ...
No leaks (block sum matches space maps exactly)
bp count: 47
On Oct 20, 2007, at 20:23, Vincent Fox wrote:
> To my mind ZFS has a serious deficiency for JBOD usage in a high-
> availability clustered environment.
>
> Namely, inability to tie spare drives to a particular storage group.
>
> Example in clustering HA setups you would would want 2 SAS JBOD
>
On Oct 18, 2007, at 13:26, Richard Elling wrote:
>
> Yes. It is true that ZFS redefines the meaning of available space.
> But
> most people like compression, snapshots, clones, and the pooling
> concept.
> It may just be that you want zfs list instead, df is old-school :-)
exactly - i'm not
On Oct 18, 2007, at 11:57, Richard Elling wrote:
> David Runyon wrote:
>> I was presenting to a customer at the EBC yesterday, and one of the
>> people at the meeting said using df in ZFS really drives him crazy
>> (no,
>> that's all the detail I have). Any ideas/suggestions?
>
> Filter it. T
SCSI based, but solid and cheap enclosures if you don't care about
support:
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?satitle=Sun+D1000
On Oct 1, 2007, at 12:15, Andy Lubel wrote:
> I gave up.
>
> The 6120 I just ended up not doing zfs. And for our 6130 since we
> don't
> have santricity or t
On Sep 26, 2007, at 14:10, Torrey McMahon wrote:
> You probably don't have to create a LUN the size of the NVRAM
> either. As
> long as its dedicated to one LUN then it should be pretty quick. The
> 3510 cache, last I checked, doesn't do any per LUN segmentation or
> sizing. Its a simple front
On Sep 25, 2007, at 19:57, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 04:47:48PM -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
>> It seems like ZIL is a separate issue.
>
> It is very much the issue: the seperate log device work was done
> exactly
> to make better use of this kind of non-volatile memory.
On Sep 21, 2007, at 14:57, eric kustarz wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I gave a talk about ZFS during EuroBSDCon 2007, and because it won
>> the
>> the best talk award and some find it funny, here it is:
>>
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=o3TGM0T1CvE
>>
>> a bit better version is here:
>>
>> http:
On Sep 6, 2007, at 14:48, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> Exactly the articles point -- rulings have consequences outside of
>> the
>> original case. The intent may have been to store logs for web server
>> access (logical and prudent request) but the ruling states that
>> RAM albeit
>> working m
On Sep 4, 2007, at 12:09, MC wrote:
> For everyone else:
>
> http://blogs.sun.com/timthomas/entry/
> samba_and_swat_in_solaris#comments
>
> "It looks like nevada 70b will be the next Solaris Express
> Developer Edition (SXDE) which should also drop shortly and should
> also have the ZFS ACL
On Jul 7, 2007, at 06:14, Orvar Korvar wrote:
When I copy that file from ZFS to /dev/null I get this output:
real0m0.025s
user0m0.002s
sys 0m0.007s
which can't be correct. Is it wrong of me to use "time cp fil fil2"
when measuring disk performance?
well you're reading and writin
On Jun 1, 2007, at 18:37, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
Can one use a spare SCSI or FC controller as if it were a target?
we'd need an FC or SCSI target mode driver in Solaris .. let's just
say we
used to have one, and leave it mysteriously there. smart idea though!
---
.je
On May 15, 2007, at 13:13, Jürgen Keil wrote:
Would you mind also doing:
ptime dd if=/dev/dsk/c2t1d0 of=/dev/null bs=128k count=1
to see the raw performance of underlying hardware.
This dd command is reading from the block device,
which might cache dataand probably splits requests
into
On May 5, 2007, at 09:34, Mario Goebbels wrote:
I spend yesterday all day evading my data of one of the Windows
disks, so that I can add it to the pool. Using mount-ntfs, it's a
pain due to its slowness. But once I finished, I thought "Cool,
let's do it". So I added the disk using the zero
right on for optimizing throughput on solaris .. a couple of notes
though (also mentioned in the QFS manuals):
- on x86/x64 you're just going to have an sd.conf so just increase
the max_xfer_size for all with a line at the bottom like:
sd_max_xfer_size=0x80;
(note: if you look at
On Feb 20, 2007, at 15:05, Krister Johansen wrote:
what's the minimum allocation size for a file in zfs? I get 1024B by
my calculation (1 x 512B block allocation (minimum) + 1 x 512B inode/
znode allocation) since we never pack file data in the inode/znode.
Is this a problem? Only if you're t
Roch
what's the minimum allocation size for a file in zfs? I get 1024B by
my calculation (1 x 512B block allocation (minimum) + 1 x 512B inode/
znode allocation) since we never pack file data in the inode/znode.
Is this a problem? Only if you're trying to pack a lot files small
byte fil
On Feb 6, 2007, at 11:46, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Does anybody know how to tell se3510 not to honor write cache
flush
commands?
JE> I don't think you can .. DKIOCFLUSHWRITECACHE *should* tell the
array
JE> to flush the cache. Gauging from the amount of calls that zfs
makes to
JE>
On Feb 6, 2007, at 06:55, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello zfs-discuss,
It looks like when zfs issues write cache flush commands se3510
actually honors it. I do not have right now spare se3510 to be 100%
sure but comparing nfs/zfs server with se3510 to another nfs/ufs
server with se3510 w
On Feb 3, 2007, at 02:31, dudekula mastan wrote:
After creating the ZFS file system on a VTOC labeled disk, I am
seeing the following warning messages.
Feb 3 07:47:00 scoobyb Corrupt label; wrong magic number
Feb 3 07:47:00 scoobyb scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: /
scsi_vhci/[
On Feb 2, 2007, at 15:35, Nicolas Williams wrote:
Unlike traditional journalling replication, a continuous ZFS send/recv
scheme could deal with resource constraints by taking a snapshot and
throttling replication until resources become available again.
Replication throttling would mean losing s
On Jan 29, 2007, at 14:17, Jeffery Malloch wrote:
Hi Guys,
SO...
From what I can tell from this thread ZFS if VERY fussy about
managing writes,reads and failures. It wants to be bit perfect.
So if you use the hardware that comes with a given solution (in my
case an Engenio 6994) to ma
On Jan 26, 2007, at 09:16, Jeffery Malloch wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am currently in the midst of setting up a completely new file
server using a pretty well loaded Sun T2000 (8x1GHz, 16GB RAM)
connected to an Engenio 6994 product (I work for LSI Logic so
Engenio is a no brainer). I have config
On Jan 26, 2007, at 13:52, Marion Hakanson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
. . .
realize that the pool is now in use by the other host. That leads
to two
systems using the same zpool which is not nice.
Is there any solution to this problem, or do I have to get Sun
Cluster 3.2 if
I want to
On Jan 25, 2007, at 17:30, Albert Chin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 02:24:47PM -0600, Al Hopper wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 10:16 -0500, Torrey McMahon wrote:
So there's no way to treat a 6140 as JBOD? If you wanted to use
a 6140
with ZFS, an
On Jan 25, 2007, at 14:34, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 10:16 -0500, Torrey McMahon wrote:
So there's no way to treat a 6140 as JBOD? If you wanted to use a
6140
with ZFS, and really wanted JBOD, your only choice would be a RAID 0
config on the 6140?
Why would you want to
On Jan 25, 2007, at 10:16, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Albert Chin wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 10:19:29AM -0800, Frank Cusack wrote:
On January 24, 2007 10:04:04 AM -0800 Bryan Cantrill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:46:11AM -0800, Moazam Raja wrote:
Well, he did sa
On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:41, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi"
was the
last thing on anyone's mind. I believe Fowler's intention was "one
that
thumps" (or, in the unique parlance of a
On Jan 24, 2007, at 06:54, Roch - PAE wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note also that for most applications, the size of their IO
operations
would often not match the current page size of the buffer, causing
additional performance and scalability issues.
Thanks for mentioning this, I forgo
On Jan 24, 2007, at 09:25, Peter Eriksson wrote:
too much of our future roadmap, suffice it to say that one should
expect
much, much more from Sun in this vein: innovative software and
innovative
hardware working together to deliver world-beating systems with
undeniable
economics.
Yes p
Roch
I've been chewing on this for a little while and had some thoughts
On Jan 15, 2007, at 12:02, Roch - PAE wrote:
Jonathan Edwards writes:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:10, Anton B. Rang wrote:
DIRECT IO is a set of performance optimisations to circumvent
shortcomings of a given files
On Jan 14, 2007, at 21:37, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
On 1/15/07, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mike Papper wrote:
>
> The alternative I am considering is to have a single filesystem
> available to many clients using a SAN (iSCSI in this case). However
> only one client would mount the ZFS
On Jan 11, 2007, at 15:42, Erik Trimble wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 10:35 -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
The product was called Sun PrestoServ. It was successful for
benchmarking
and such, but unsuccessful in the market because:
+ when there is a failure, your data is spread across
On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:10, Anton B. Rang wrote:
DIRECT IO is a set of performance optimisations to circumvent
shortcomings of a given filesystem.
Direct I/O as generally understood (i.e. not UFS-specific) is an
optimization which allows data to be transferred directly between
user data bu
On Dec 20, 2006, at 04:41, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
There also may be a reason to do this when confidentiality isn't
required: as a sparse provisioning hack..
If you were to build a zfs pool out of compressed zvols backed by
another pool, then it would be very convenient i
On Dec 20, 2006, at 00:37, Anton B. Rang wrote:
"INFORMATION: If a member of this striped zpool becomes
unavailable or
develops corruption, Solaris will kernel panic and reboot to
protect your data."
OK, I'm puzzled.
Am I the only one on this list who believes that a kernel panic,
inste
On Dec 19, 2006, at 10:15, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what i
On Dec 18, 2006, at 11:54, Darren J Moffat wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather than bleaching which doesn't always remove all stains, why
can't
we use a word like "erasing" (which is hitherto unused for
filesystem use
in Solaris, AFAIK)
and this method doesn't remove all stains from t
On Dec 19, 2006, at 08:59, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Darren Reed wrote:
If/when ZFS supports this then it would be nice to also be able
to have Solaris bleach swap on ZFS when it shuts down or reboots.
Although it may be that this option needs to be put into how we
manage swap space and not speci
On Dec 19, 2006, at 07:17, Roch - PAE wrote:
Shouldn't there be a big warning when configuring a pool
with no redundancy and/or should that not require a -f flag ?
why? what if the redundancy is below the pool .. should we
warn that ZFS isn't directly involved in redundancy decisions?
---
.
On Dec 18, 2006, at 17:52, Richard Elling wrote:
In general, the closer to the user you can make policy decisions,
the better
decisions you can make. The fact that we've had 10 years of RAID
arrays
acting like dumb block devices doesn't mean that will continue for
the next
10 years :-) I
On Dec 18, 2006, at 16:13, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Al Hopper wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Ricardo Correia wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 20:02, Dave Burleson wrote:
Does anyone have a document that describes ZFS in a pure
SAN environment? What will and will not work?
From some of the i
On Dec 8, 2006, at 05:20, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
Hello ZFS Experts
I have two ZFS pools zpool1 and zpool2
I am trying to create bunch of zvols such that their paths are
similar except for consisent number scheme without reference to the
zpools that actually belong. (This will allow me to
rly on such devices, less-than-optimal
performance might
be the result.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:24 PM
To: Jonathan Edwards
Cc: David Elefante; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
On Nov 29, 2006, at 13:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect a lack of an MBR could cause some BIOS implementations to
barf ..
Why?
Zeroed disks don't have that issue either.
you're right - I was thinking that a lack of an MBR with a GPT could
be causing problems, but actually it loo
On Nov 29, 2006, at 10:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a problem since how can anyone use ZFS on a PC??? My
motherboard is a newly minted AM2 w/ all the latest firmware. I
disabled boot detection on the sata channels and it still refuses
to boot. I had to purchase an external SATA e
On Oct 25, 2006, at 15:38, Roger Ripley wrote:
IBM has contributed code for NFSv4 ACLs under AIX's JFS; hopefully
Sun will not tarry in following their lead for ZFS.
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-cvs/2006-September/070855.html
I thought this was still in draft:
http://ietf.org/inter
there's 2 approaches:
1) RAID 1+Z where you mirror the individual drives across trays and
then RAID-Z the whole thing
2) RAID Z+1 where you RAIDZ each tray and then mirror them
I would argue that you can lose the most drives in configuration 1
and stay alive:
With a simple mirrored stripe
On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:26, Dale Ghent wrote:
On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
On October 24, 2006 9:19:07 AM -0700 "Anton B. Rang"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Our thinking is that if you want more redundancy than RAID-Z,
you should
use RAID-Z with double parity, which provi
On Oct 24, 2006, at 04:19, Roch wrote:
Michel Kintz writes:
Matthew Ahrens a écrit :
Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
Anthony Miller wrote:
Hi,
I've search the forums and not found any answer to the following.
I have 2 JBOD arrays each with 4 disks.
I want to create create a raidz on one
you don't really need to do the prtvtoc and fmthard with the old Sun
labels if you start at cylinder 0 since you're doing a bit -> bit
copy with dd .. but, keep in mind:
- The Sun VTOC is the first 512B and s2 *typically* should start at
cylinder 0 (unless it's been redefined .. check!)
- T
On Oct 16, 2006, at 07:39, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Noel Dellofano wrote:
I don't understand why you can't use 'zpool status'? That will
show the pools and the physical devices in each and is also a
pretty basic command. Examples are given in the sysadmin docs and
manpages for ZFS on the
On Oct 8, 2006, at 23:54, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 11:16:21PM -0400, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Oct 8, 2006, at 22:46, Nicolas Williams wrote:
You're arguing for treating FV as extended/named attributes :)
kind of - but one of the problems with EAs is the inc
On Oct 8, 2006, at 22:46, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 10:28:06PM -0400, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Oct 8, 2006, at 21:40, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
On 10/7/06, Ben Gollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm, what about file.txt -> ._file.txt.1, ._file.txt.2, etc? If you
d
On Oct 8, 2006, at 21:40, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
On 10/7/06, Ben Gollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 6, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> What I'm saying is that I'd like to be able to keep multiple
> versions of
> my files without "echo *" or "ls" showing them to me by default.
H
On Oct 6, 2006, at 23:42, Anton B. Rang wrote:I don't agree that version control systems solve the same problem as file versioning. I don't want to check *every change* that I make into version control -- it makes the history unwieldy. At the same time, if I make a change that turns out to work rea
On Oct 6, 2006, at 21:17, Joseph Mocker wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 03:30:20PM -0600, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net
LLC wrote:
On Oct 6, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
OK. So, now we're on to FV. As Nico pointed out, FV is going
to need a new API. Using t
On Sep 18, 2006, at 23:16, Eric Schrock wrote:
Here's an example: I've three LUNs in a ZFS pool offered from my
HW raid
array. I take a snapshot onto three other LUNs. A day later I turn
the
host off. I go to the array and offer all six LUNs, the pool that
was in
use as well as the snapsh
On Sep 18, 2006, at 14:41, Eric Schrock wrote:
2 - If you import LUNs with the same label or ID as a currently
mounted
pool then ZFS will no one seems to know. For example: I have
a pool
on two LUNS X and Y called mypool. I take a snapshot of LUN X & Y,
ignoring issue #1 above for no
On Sep 8, 2006, at 14:22, Ed Gould wrote:
On Sep 8, 2006, at 9:33, Richard Elling - PAE wrote:
I was looking for a new AM2 socket motherboard a few weeks ago.
All of the ones
I looked at had 2xIDE and 4xSATA with onboard (SATA) RAID. All
were less than $150.
In other words, the days of ha
On Sep 5, 2006, at 06:45, Robert Milkowski wrote:Hello Wee,Tuesday, September 5, 2006, 10:58:32 AM, you wrote:WYT> On 9/5/06, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is simply not true. ZFS would protect against the same type oferrors seen on an individual drive as it would on a pool made of
On Aug 2, 2006, at 17:03, prasad wrote:
Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are any other hosts using the array? Do you plan on carving LUNs
out of
the RAID5 LD and assigning them to other hosts?
There are no other hosts using the array. We need all the available
space (2.45TB) on
On Aug 1, 2006, at 22:23, Luke Lonergan wrote:
Torrey,
On 8/1/06 10:30 AM, "Torrey McMahon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.sun.com/storagetek/disk_systems/workgroup/3510/index.xml
Look at the specs page.
I did.
This is 8 trays, each with 14 disks and two active Fibre channel
attac
On Aug 1, 2006, at 14:18, Torrey McMahon wrote:
(I hate when I hit the Send button when trying to change windows)
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:31:22PM -0400, Torrey McMahon wrote:
The correct comparison is done when all the factors are taken
into account. Making blank
On Aug 1, 2006, at 03:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x really
screwed up in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS
server that the clients (linux and IRIX) liked just fine.
Yes; the Linux NFS server and client work tog
On Jul 30, 2006, at 23:44, Malahat Qureshi wrote:
Is any one have a comparison between zfs vs. vxfs, I'm working on a
presentation for my management on this ---
That can be a tough question to answer depending on what you're
looking for .. you could take the feature comparison approach like
On Jun 21, 2006, at 11:05, Anton B. Rang wrote:
My guess from reading between the lines of the Samsung/Microsoft
press release is that there is a mechanism for the operating system
to "pin" particular blocks into the cache (e.g. to speed boot) and
the rest of the cache is used for write
On Jun 28, 2006, at 18:25, Erik Trimble wrote:On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 14:55 -0700, Jeff Bonwick wrote: Which is better -zfs raidz on hardware mirrors, or zfs mirror on hardware raid-5? The latter. With a mirror of RAID-5 arrays, you get:(1) Self-healing data.(2) Tolerance of whole-array failure.(3)
On Jun 28, 2006, at 17:25, Erik Trimble wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 13:24 -0400, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
On Jun 28, 2006, at 12:32, Erik Trimble wrote:
The main reason I don't see ZFS mirror / HW RAID5 as useful is this:
ZFS mirror/ RAID5: capacity = (N /
On Jun 28, 2006, at 12:32, Erik Trimble wrote:The main reason I don't see ZFS mirror / HW RAID5 as useful is this: ZFS mirror/ RAID5: capacity = (N / 2) -1 speed << N / 2 -1 minimum # disks to lose before loss of data:
-Does ZFS in the current version support LUN extension? With UFS, we have to zero the VTOC, and then adjust the new disk geometry. How does it look like with ZFS?The vdev can handle dynamic lun growth, but the underlying VTOC or EFI labelmay need to be zero'd and reapplied if you setup the initial
On Jun 15, 2006, at 06:23, Roch Bourbonnais - Performance Engineering
wrote:
Naively I'd think a write_cache should not help throughput
test since the cache should fill up after which you should still be
throttled by the physical drain rate. You clearly show that
it helps; Anyone knows why
93 matches
Mail list logo
