On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 01:38:11PM -0800, Igor P wrote:
> I created a zfs pool with dedup with the following settings:
> zpool create data c8t1d0
> zfs create data/shared
> zfs set dedup=on data/shared
>
> The thing I was wondering about was it seems like ZFS only dedup at
> the file level and not
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 07:16:04AM -0800, Orvar Korvar wrote:
> BTW, I thought about this. What do you say?
>
> Assume I want to compress data and I succeed in doing so. And then I
> transfer the compressed data. So all the information I transferred is
> the compressed data. But, then you don't co
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:19:23AM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Peter Taps wrote:
>
> >Thank you for sharing the calculations. In lay terms, for Sha256,
> >how many blocks of data would be needed to have one collision?
>
> Two.
Pretty funny.
In this thread some of you ar
On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 06:39:51AM -0800, Michael DeMan wrote:
> On Jan 7, 2011, at 6:13 AM, David Magda wrote:
> > The other thing to note is that by default (with de-dupe disabled), ZFS
> > uses Fletcher checksums to prevent data corruption. Add also the fact all
> > other file systems don't have
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 06:07:47PM -0500, David Magda wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2011, at 15:57, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>
> > Fletcher is faster than SHA-256, so I think that must be what you're
> > asking about: "can Fletcher+Verification be faster than
> > Sha256+NoV
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 11:44:31AM -0800, Peter Taps wrote:
> I have been told that the checksum value returned by Sha256 is almost
> guaranteed to be unique.
All hash functions are guaranteed to have collisions [for inputs larger
than their output anyways].
> In fact, if
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 09:06:45PM -0500, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Williams
> >
> > > Actually I'd say that latency has a direct relationship to IOP
On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 08:37:42PM -0500, Ross Walker wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
>
> > Latency is what matters most. While there is a loose relationship between
> > IOPS
> > and latency, you really want low latency. For 15krpm drives, the average
> > latency
>
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:25:43AM +0100, Stephan Budach wrote:
> as I have learned from the discussion about which SSD to use as ZIL
> drives, I stumbled across this article, that discusses short
> stroking for increasing IOPs on SAS and SATA drives:
There was a thread on this a while back. I fo
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 09:32:13AM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> On 22/12/2010 20:27, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> >That said, some operations -- and cryptographic ones in particular --
> >may use floating point registers and operations because for some
> >architectures (sun4u rings a bell) this can
Also, when the IV is stored you can more easily look for accidental IV
re-use, and if you can find hash collisions, them you can even cause IV
re-use (if you can write to the filesystem in question). For GCM IV
re-use is rather fatal (for CCM it's bad, but IIRC not fatal), so I'd
not use GCM with
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:58:06PM -0800, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On 11/17/10 12:04, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >black-box crypto is snake oil at any level, IMNSHO.
>
> Absolutely.
As Darren said, much of the design has been discussed in public, and
reviewed by cryptographers. It'd be nicer if we ha
On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 09:52:51PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> Are we living in the past?
>
> In the bad old days, UNIX systems spoke NFS and Windows systems spoke
> CIFS. The cost of creating a file system was expensive -- slices,
> partitions, etc.
>
> With ZFS, file systems (datasets) are r
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 05:19:25PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >>>>> "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
>
> nw> *You* stated that your proposal wouldn't allow Windows users
> nw> full control over file permissions.
>
> me: I have a pr
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 04:38:02PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >>>>> "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
>
> nw> The current system fails closed
>
> wrong.
>
> $ touch t0
> $ chmod 444 t0
> $ chmod A0+user:$(id -nu):write_data:allow t0
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 02:28:18PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >>>>> "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
>
> nw> I would think that 777 would invite chmods. I think you are
> nw> handwaving.
>
> it is how AFS worked. Since no file on
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 04:30:05PM -0600, Cindy Swearingen wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> I don't think you will see much difference for these reasons:
>
> 1. The CIFS server ignores the aclinherit/aclmode properties.
Because CIFS/SMB has no chmod operation :)
> 2. Your aclinherit=passthrough setting o
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:14:24PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >> Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from Windows?
>
> no, not under my proposal.
Let's give it a whirld anyways:
> but it sounds like currently people cannot ``fix'' permissions through
> the quirky autotranslation anyway
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:14:24PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >> Can the user in (3) fix the permissions from Windows?
>
> no, not under my proposal.
Then your proposal is a non-starter. Support for multiple remote
filesystem access protocols is key for ZFS and Solaris.
The impedance mism
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 03:28:14PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> Consider this chronologically-ordered sequence of events:
>
> 1) File is created via Windows, gets SMB/ZFS/NFSv4-style ACL, including
>inherittable ACEs. A mode computed from this ACL might be 664, say.
>
&
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 02:55:26PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >>>>> "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
> nw> Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to interop
> nw> with Windows. If a Windows user cannot completely change file
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 05:21:51PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:09:22PM -0700, Ralph Böhme wrote:
> > > Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to
> > > interop with Windows.
> >
> > Oh my, I see. Another itch to scratc
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:09:22PM -0700, Ralph Böhme wrote:
> > Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to
> > interop with Windows.
>
> Oh my, I see. Another itch to scratch. Now at least Windows users are
> happy while me and mabye others are not.
Yes. Pardon me for forgetting to m
Keep in mind that Windows lacks a mode_t. We need to interop with
Windows. If a Windows user cannot completely change file perms because
there's a mode_t completely out of their reach... they'll be frustrated.
Thus an ACL-and-mode model where both are applied doesn't work. It'd be
nice, but it
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:44:57AM -0700, Ralph Böhme wrote:
> > On 9/28/2010 2:13 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > The version of samba bundled with Solaris 10 seems to
> > insist on
> > chmod'ing stuff. I've tried all of the various
Just in case it's not
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:15:32AM +1300, Ian Collins wrote:
> Based on my own research, experimentation and client requests, I
> agree with all of the above.
Good to know.
> I have be re-ordering and cleaning (deny) ACEs for one client for a
> couple of years now and we haven't seen any user com
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 02:03:30PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>
> > I've researched this enough (mainly by reading most of the ~240 or so
> > relevant zfs-discuss posts and several bug reports)
>
> And I think some
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:18:49PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010, [iso-8859-1] Ralph Böhme wrote:
>
> > Darwin ACL model is nice and slick, the new NFSv4 one in 147 is just
> > braindead. chmod resulting in ACLs being discarded is a bizarre design
> > decision.
>
> Agreed. Wh
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 06:58:29AM +, Markus Kovero wrote:
> > What is an example of where a checksummed outside pool would not be able
> > to protect a non-checksummed inside pool? Would an intermittent
> > RAM/motherboard/CPU failure that only corrupted the inner pool's block
> > before i
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:30:58PM -0600, Neil Perrin wrote:
> On 09/22/10 11:22, Moazam Raja wrote:
> >Hi all, I have a ZFS question related to COW and scope.
> >
> >If user A is reading a file while user B is writing to the same file,
> >when do the changes introduced by user B become visible to
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 07:14:43AM -0700, Orvar Korvar wrote:
> There was a guy doing that: Windows as host and OpenSolaris as guest
> with raw access to his disks. He lost his 12 TB data. It turned out
> that VirtualBox dont honor the write flush flag (or something
> similar).
VirtualBox has an o
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 05:18:08PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> It is absolutely not difficult to avoid fragmentation on a spindle drive, at
> the level I described. Just keep plenty of empty space in your drive, and
> you won't have a fragmentation problem. (Except as required by COW.) How
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 04:13:31PM -0400, Linder, Doug wrote:
> I recently created a test zpool (RAIDZ) on some iSCSI shares. I made
> a few test directories and files. When I do a listing, I see
> something I've never seen before:
>
> [r...@hostname anewdir] # ls -la
> total 6160
> drwxr-xr-x
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:05:53PM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> Think of this from the perspective of an application. How would
> write failure be reported? open(2) returns EACCES if the file can
> not be written but there isn't a corresponding return from write(2).
> Any open file descriptors woul
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:17:38AM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 08/20/10 09:48 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >And anyways, the temptation to build classes that can be used
> >elsewhere becomes rather strong. IMO C++ in the kernel is asking for
> >trouble. And C++ in u
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:38:51AM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 08/20/10 09:33 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >Any driver C++ code would still need a C++ run-time. Either you must
> >statically link it in, or you'll have a problem with multiple drivers
> >using differ
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:23:56AM +1200, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 08/20/10 08:30 AM, Garrett D'Amore 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". Ju
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 07:48:10PM -0500, Norm Jacobs wrote:
> For single file updates, this is commonly solved by writing data to
> a temp file and using rename(2) to move it in place when it's ready.
For anything more complicated you need... a more complicated approach.
Note that "transactional
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 03:07:59PM -0600, Beau J. Bechdol wrote:
> So not sue if this is the correct list to email to or not. I am curious to
> know on my machine I have two hard drive (c8t0d0 and c8t1d0). Can some one
> explain to me what this exactly means? What does "c8" "t0" and "d0" actually
>
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 08:42:33PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-09 at 10:23 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > In theory, collisions happen. In practice, given a cryptographic hash,
> > if you can find two different blocks or files that produce the same
> > output, please publicise
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 01:35:31PM -0700, valrh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Finally, for my purposes, it doesn't seem like a ZIL is necessary? I'm
> the only user of the fileserver, so there probably won't be more than
> two or three computers, maximum, accessing stuff (and writing stuff)
> remotely.
It
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 04:44:07PM +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
> Please keep in mind I'm talking about a usage as ZIL, not as L2ARC or main
> pool. Because ZIL issues nearly sequential writes, due to the NVRAM-protection
> of the RAID-controller the disk can leave the write cache enabled. This means
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 12:37:01PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 11:16:40AM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > > The ISO's I'm testing with are the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the
> > > RHEL5 DVD ISO's. While both ha
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 05:48:56PM -0400, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> I recently got a new SSD (ocz vertex LE 50gb)
>
> It seems to work really well as a ZIL performance wise. My question is, how
> safe is it? I know it doesn't have a supercap so lets' say dataloss
> occursis it just dataloss or
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 04:23:49PM -0400, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> I know i'm probably doing something REALLY stupid.but for some reason i
> can't get send/recv to work over ssh. I just built a new media server and
> i'd like to move a few filesystem from my old server to my new server but
> fo
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 02:29:24PM -0700, Don wrote:
> "Since it ignores Cache Flush command and it doesn't have any
> persistant buffer storage, disabling the write cache is the best you
> can do."
>
> This actually brings up another question I had: What is the risk,
> beyond a few seconds of los
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 07:50:13AM -0700, John Hoogerdijk wrote:
> Think about the potential problems if I don't mirror the log devices
> across the WAN.
If you don't mirror the log devices then your disaster recovery
semantics will be that you'll miss any transactions that hadn't been
committed t
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 05:33:05AM -0700, Chris Gerhard wrote:
> The reason for wanting to know is to try and find versions of a file.
No, there's no such guarantee. The same inode and generation number
pair is extremely unlikely to be re-used, but the inode number itself is
likely to be re-used.
On Thu, May 06, 2010 at 03:30:05PM -0500, Wes Felter wrote:
> On 5/6/10 5:28 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
>
> >sync=disabled
> >Synchronous requests are disabled. File system transactions
> >only commit to stable storage on the next DMU transaction group
> >commit which can be many seconds.
>
> Is
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 01:03:39PM -0500, Jason King wrote:
> ISTR POSIX also doesn't allow a number of features that can be turned
> on with zfs (even ignoring the current issues that prevent ZFS from
> being fully POSIX compliant today). I think an additional option for
> the snapdir property ('
POSIX doesn't allow us to have special dot files/directories outside
filesystem root directories.
Nico
--
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:45:24AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > From: Mark Shellenbaum [mailto:mark.shellenb...@oracle.com]
> > >
> > > You can create/destroy/rename snapshots via mkdir, rmdir, mv inside
> > the
> > > .zfs/snapshot directory, however, it will only work if you're running
> >
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 04:28:02PM +, A Darren Dunham wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:03:33AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > > "zfs list -t snapshot" lists in time order.
> >
> > Good to know. I'll keep that in mind for my "zfs send" scripts but it's not
> > relevant for the case at
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 01:56:07PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> The typical problem scenario is: Some user or users fill up the filesystem.
> They rm some files, but disk space is not freed. You need to destroy all
> the snapshots that contain the deleted files, before disk space is availabl
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 02:19:47PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > I've a ksh93 script that lists all the snapshotted versions of a file...
> > Works over NFS too.
> >
> > % zfshist /usr/bin/ls
> > H
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 01:54:45PM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> If you've got nested zfs filesystems, and you're in some subdirectory where
> there's a file or something you want to rollback, it's presently difficult
> to know how far back up the tree you need to go, to find the correct ".zfs"
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 11:53:23AM -0400, Tony MacDoodle wrote:
> Can I rollback a snapshot that I did a zfs send on?
>
> ie: zfs send testpool/w...@april6 > /backups/w...@april6_2010
That you did a zfs send does not prevent you from rolling back to a
previous snapshot. Similarly for zfs recv --
zfs diff is incredibly cool.
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
One really good use for zfs diff would be: as a way to index zfs send
backups by contents.
Nico
--
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 04:23:38PM +, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> If the data is in the L2ARC that is still better than going out to
> the main pool disks to get the compressed version.
Well, one could just compress it... If you'd otherwise put compression
in the ssh pipe (or elsewhere) then y
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:38:00PM -0700, Rob wrote:
> Can a ZFS send stream become corrupt when piped between two hosts
> across a WAN link using 'ssh'?
No. SSHv2 uses HMAC-MD5 and/or HMAC-SHA-1, depending on what gets
negotiated, for integrity protection. The chances of random on the wire
corr
BTW, it should be relatively easy to implement aclmode=ignore and
aclmode=deny, if you like.
- $SRC/common/zfs/zfs_prop.c needs to be updated to know about the new
values of aclmode.
- $SRC/uts/common/fs/zfs/zfs_acl.c:zfs_acl_chmod()'s callers need to be
modified:
- in the create pat
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 09:04:58PM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > Yes, that sounds useful. (Group modebits could be applied to all ACEs
> > that are neither owner@ nor everyone@ ACEs.)
>
> That sounds an awful lot like the POSI
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:10:52AM -0800, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On 03/02/10 08:13, Fredrich Maney wrote:
> >Why not do the same sort of thing and use that extra bit to flag a
> >file, or directory, as being an ACL only file and will negate the rest
> >of the mask? That accomplishes what Paul is
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:00:29PM -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >>>>> "nw" == Nicolas Williams writes:
>
> nw> What could we do to make it easier to use ACLs?
>
> 1. how about AFS-style ones where the effective permission is the AND
>of th
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 04:26:43PM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > I believe we can do a bit better.
> >
> > A chmod that adds (see below) or removes one of r, w or x for owner is a
> > simple ACL edit (the bit may turn
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 05:02:34PM -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> On Fri, February 26, 2010 12:45, Paul B. Henson wrote:
>
> > I've already posited as to an approach that I think would make a pure-ACL
> > deployment possible:
> >
> >
> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:50:05PM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
>
> > I believe this proposal is sound.
>
> Mere words can not express the sheer joy with which I receive this opinion
> from an @sun.com address ;).
I believe we can do a bit better.
A
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:23:40AM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> So far it's been quite a struggle to deploy ACL's on an enterprise central
> file services platform with access via multiple protocols and have them
> actually be functional and reliable. I can see why the average consumer
> might gi
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 03:31:51PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> With millions of such tiny files, it makes sense to put the small
> files in a separate zfs filesystem which has its recordsize property
> set to a size not much larger than the size of the files. This should
> reduce waste, res
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 02:09:42PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> I have a directory here containing a million files and it has not
> caused any strain for zfs at all although it can cause considerable
> stress on applications.
The biggest problem is always the apps. For example, ls by default
On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 03:41:16PM -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
> ch> In our particular case, there won't be
> ch> snapshots of destroyed filesystems (I create the snapshots,
> ch> and destroy them with the filesystem).
>
> Right, but if your zpool is above a zvol vdev (ex COMSTAR on ano
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 05:08:02PM -0500, c.hanover wrote:
> In our particular case, there won't be snapshots of destroyed
> filesystems (I create the snapshots, and destroy them with the
> filesystem).
OK.
> I'm not too sure on the particulars of NFS/ZFS, but would it be
> possible to create a 1
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 04:41:08PM -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
> > "ch" == c hanover writes:
>
> ch> is there a way to a) securely destroy a filesystem,
>
> AIUI zfs crypto will include this, some day, by forgetting the key.
Right.
> but for SSD, zfs above a zvol, or zfs above a SAN tha
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 03:49:15PM -0500, c.hanover wrote:
> Two things, mostly related, that I'm trying to find answers to for our
> security team.
>
> Does this scenario make sense:
> * Create a filesystem at /users/nfsshare1, user uses it for a while,
> asks for the filesystem to be deleted
> *
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 04:03:19PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> On 2/4/10 2:46 PM -0600 Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >In Frank's case, IIUC, the better solution is to avoid the need for
> >unionfs in the first place by not placing pkg content in directories
> >that one migh
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 03:19:15PM -0500, Frank Cusack wrote:
> BTW, I could just install everything in the global zone and use the
> default "inheritance" of /usr into each local zone to see the data.
> But then my zones are not independent portable entities; they would
> depend on some non-defaul
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:11:31PM -0800, Moshe Vainer wrote:
> >PS: For data that you want to mostly archive, consider using Amazon
> >Web Services (AWS) S3 service. Right now there is no charge to push
> >data into the cloud and its $0.15/gigabyte to keep it there. Do a
> >quick (back of the napk
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 03:32:21PM +0100, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> if the hash used for dedup is completely separate from the hash used for
> data protection, I don't see any downsides to computing the dedup hash
> from uncompressed data. why isn't it?
Hash and checksum functions are slow (h
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 12:44:16PM -0800, Per Baatrup wrote:
> >if any of f2..f5 have different block sizes from f1
>
> This restriction does not sound so bad to me if this only refers to
> changes to the blocksize of a particular ZFS filesystem or copying
> between different ZFSes in the same poo
On Thu, Dec 03, 2009 at 03:57:28AM -0800, Per Baatrup wrote:
> I would like to to concatenate N files into one big file taking
> advantage of ZFS copy-on-write semantics so that the file
> concatenation is done without actually copying any (large amount of)
> file content.
> cat f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 >
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 09:58:19AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> I only know of "hole punching" in the context of networking. ZFS doesn't
> do networking, so the pedantic answer is no.
But a VDEV may be an iSCSI device, thus there can be networking below
ZFS.
For some iSCSI targets (including ZV
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:33:22PM -0600, Tim Cook wrote:
> You're telling me a scrub won't actively clean up corruption in snapshots?
> That sounds absolutely absurd to me.
Depends on how much redundancy you have in your pool. If you have no
mirrors, no RAID-Z, and no ditto blocks for data, well
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 11:01:34AM -0800, Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
> forgive my ignorance, but what's the advantage of this new dedup over
> the existing compression option? Wouldn't full-filesystem compression
> naturally de-dupe?
If you snapshot/clone as you go, then yes, dedup will do little
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:58:32PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> Looking at FIPS-180-3 in sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 I was thinking that the
> major leap from SHA256 to SHA512 was a 32-bit to 64-bit step.
ZFS doesn't have enough room in blkptr_t for 512-bi hashes.
Nico
--
_
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 08:53:50PM -0700, Anil wrote:
> I haven't tried this, but this must be very easy with dtrace. How come
> no one mentioned it yet? :) You would have to monitor some specific
> syscalls...
DTrace is not reliable in this sense: it will drop events rather than
overburden the sy
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:03:06AM -0700, Rudolf Potucek wrote:
> Hmm ... I understand this is a bug, but only in the sense that the
> message is not sufficiently descriptive. Removing the file from the
> source filesystem will not necessarily free any space because the
> blocks have to be retained
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 01:41:15PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Len Zaifman wrote:
> >We have groups generating terabytes a day of image data from lab
> >instruments and saving them to an X4500.
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to compress at the application, or between
So, the manpage seems to have a bug in it. The valid values for the
normalization property are:
none | formC | formD | formKC | formKD
Nico
--
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinf
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 06:46:32AM -0700, Chris Murray wrote:
> Nico, what is a zero-link file, and how would I go about finding
> whether I have one? You'll have to bear with me, I'm afraid, as I'm
> still building my Solaris knowledge at the minute - I was brought up
> on Windows. I use Solaris f
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 04:22:19PM -0400, Paul Kraus wrote:
> We have a system with some large datasets (3.3 TB and about 35
> million files) and conventional backups take a long time (using
> Netbackup 6.5 a FULL takes between two and three days, differential
> incrementals, even with very
Perhaps an open 14GB, zero-link file?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 05:57:57PM -0500, Haudy Kazemi wrote:
> >Therefore, if you need to interoperate with MacOS X then you should
> >enable the normalization feature.
> >
> Thank you for the reply. My goal is to configure the filesystem for the
> lowest common denominator without knowing up f
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 06:17:44PM -0500, Haudy Kazemi wrote:
> I'm wondering what are some use cases for ZFS's utf8only and
> normalization properties. They are off/none by default, and can only be
> set when the filesystem is created. When should they specifically be
> enabled and/or disable
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 03:35:06PM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
> Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >What do you think about the following feature?
> >
> >"Subdirectory is automatically a new filesystem" property - an
> >administrator turns
> >on this magic property of a filesystem, after that every mkdir *i
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 05:01:15PM +0200, dick hoogendijk wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:44:36 -0400
> Kyle McDonald wrote:
> > ... then it seems like a shame (or a waste?) not to equally
> > protect the data both before it's given to ZFS for writing, and after
> > ZFS reads it back and returns
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 02:45:52PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, t. johnson wrote:
> >Lets say I have a simple-ish setup that uses vmware files for
> >virtual disks on an NFS share from zfs. I'm wondering how zfs'
> >variable block size comes into play? Does it make the ali
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 02:45:57PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> But to put this in perspective, you would have to *delete* 20 GBytes
Or overwrite (since the overwrites turn in to COW writes of new blocks
and the old blocks are released if not referred to from snapshot).
> of data a day on a ZFS
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 04:09:29PM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> Also, as I said elsewhere, there's a barrier controlled by Sun to
> getting bugs accepted. This is a useful barrier: the bug database is
> a more useful drive toward improvement if it's not cluttered. It also
> means, like I said, so
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 04:40:43PM -0600, Eric D. Mudama wrote:
> As another datapoint, the 111a opensolaris preview got me ~29MB/s
> through an SSH tunnel with no tuning on a 40GB dataset.
>
> Sender was a Core2Duo E4500 reading from SSDs and receiver was a Xeon
> E5520 writing to a few mirrored
1 - 100 of 428 matches
Mail list logo
