Re: [zfs-discuss] [zfs] Petabyte pool?

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Jim Klimov wrote: > On 2013-03-16 15:20, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > >> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013, Kristoffer Sheather @ CloudCentral wrote: >> >> Well, off the top of my head: >>> >>> 2 x Storage Heads, 4 x 10G, 256G RAM, 2 x Intel E5 CPU's >>> 8 x 60-Bay JBOD's with 60

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Distro Advice

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Dan Swartzendruber wrote: > > I've been using it since rc13. It's been stable for me as long as you > don't > get into things like zvols and such... > > > Then it definitely isn't at the level of FreeBSD, and personally I would not consider that production ready.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Distro Advice

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Tiernan OToole wrote: > Thanks all! I will check out FreeNAS and see what it can do... I will also > check my RAID Card and see if it can work with JBOD... fingers crossed... > The machine has a couple internal SATA ports (think there are 2, could be > 4) so i was

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Distro Advice

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Volker A. Brandt wrote: > Tim Cook writes: > > > I need something that will allow me to share files over SMB (3 if > > > possible), NFS, AFP (for Time Machine) and iSCSI. Ideally, i would > > > like something i can manage "ea

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Distro Advice

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Tiernan OToole wrote: > Good morning all. > > My home NAS died over the weekend, and it leaves me with a lot of spare > drives (5 2Tb and 3 1Tb disks). I have a Dell Poweredge 2900 Server sitting > in the house, which has not been doing much over the last while (b

Re: [zfs-discuss] Feature Request for zfs pool/filesystem protection?

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Jan Owoc wrote: > Hi Markus, > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Markus Grundmann > wrote: > > I think the "zfs allow|deny" feature is only for filesystems. I wish me a > > feature to protect the complete pool. The property is restricted to zpool > > commands. >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Feature Request for zfs pool/filesystem protection?

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Feb 20, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Elling > wrote: > >> On Feb 20, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Markus Grundmann >> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> My

Re: [zfs-discuss] Is there performance penalty when adding vdev to existing pool

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2013, Sašo Kiselkov wrote: > > On 02/21/2013 12:27 AM, Peter Wood wrote: >> >>> Will adding another vdev hurt the performance? >>> >> >> In general, the answer is: no. ZFS will try to balance

Re: [zfs-discuss] Feature Request for zfs pool/filesystem protection?

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Feb 20, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Markus Grundmann > wrote: > > Hi! > > My name is Markus and I living in germany. I'm new to this list and I have > a simple question > related to zfs. My favorite operating system is FreeBSD and I'm very happy >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Feature Request for zfs pool/filesystem protection?

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Markus Grundmann wrote: > Hi! > > My name is Markus and I living in germany. I'm new to this list and I have > a simple question > related to zfs. My favorite operating system is FreeBSD and I'm very happy > to use zfs on them. > > It's possible to enhance the prop

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs-discuss mailing list & opensolaris EOL

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms] > > > > Why would I spend all that time and > > energy participating in ANO

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs-discuss mailing list & opensolaris EOL

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 3:42 PM, cindy swearingen < cindy.swearin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Ned and Everyone, > > This was new news to use too and we're just talking over some options > yesterday > afternoon so please give us a chance to regroup and provide some > alternatives. > > This list will

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs-discuss mailing list & opensolaris EOL

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms] > > > > That would be the logical decision, yes. Not to poke fun, but did yo

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs-discuss mailing list & opensolaris EOL

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > In the absence of any official response, I guess we just have to assume > this list will be shut down, right? > > So I guess we just have t

Re: [zfs-discuss] maczfs / ZEVO

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > Anybody using maczfs / ZEVO? Have good or bad things to say, in terms > of reliability, performance, features? > > ** ** > > My main reaso

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS monitoring

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Borja Marcos wrote: > > Hello, > > I'n updating Devilator, the performance data collector for Orca and > FreeBSD to include ZFS monitoring. So far I am graphing the ARC and L2ARC > size, L2ARC writes and reads, and several hit/misses data pairs. > > Any suggestion

Re: [zfs-discuss] RFE: Un-dedup for unique blocks

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Jan 20, 2013, at 8:16 AM, Edward Harvey > wrote: > > But, by talking about it, we're just smoking pipe dreams. Cuz we all > know zfs is developmentally challenged now. But one can dream... > > I disagree the ZFS is developmentally chal

Re: [zfs-discuss] dm-crypt + ZFS on Linux

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 9:49 AM, John Baxter wrote: > > We have the need to encypt our data, approximately 30TB on three ZFS > volumes under Solaris 10. The volumes currently reside on iscsi sans > connected via 10Gb/s ethernet. We have tested Solaris 11 with ZFS encrypted > volumes and found the

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Appliance as a general-purpose server question

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Jim Klimov wrote: > On 2012-11-22 17:31, Darren J Moffat wrote: > >> Is it possible to use the ZFS Storage appliances in a similar >>> way, and fire up a Solaris zone (or a few) directly on the box >>> for general-purpose software; or to shell-script administrati

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace X with Y: devices have different sector alignment

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Trond Michelsen wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Jan Owoc wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Trond Michelsen > >> wrote: > >>> How can I replace t

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace X with Y: devices have different sector alignment

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Jan Owoc wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Jan Owoc wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Trond Michelsen > wrote: > >> When I try to replace the old drive, I get this error: > >> > >> # zpool replace tank c4t5000C5002AA2F8D6d0 c4t5000C5004DE863F2d

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace X with Y: devices have different sector alignment

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Jan Owoc wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Trond Michelsen > wrote: > > When I try to replace the old drive, I get this error: > > > > # zpool replace tank c4t5000C5002AA2F8D6d0 c4t5000C5004DE863F2d0 > > cannot replace c4t5000C5002AA2F8D6d0 with c4t5000C5

Re: [zfs-discuss] FC HBA for openindiana

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > Do make sure you're getting one that has the proper firmware. > > Those with BIOS don't work in SPARC boxes, and those with OpenBoot don't > work in x64 stuff. > > A quick "Sun FC HBA" search on ebay turns up a whole list of stuff that's > "

Re: [zfs-discuss] FC HBA for openindiana

The built in drivers support Mpha so you're good to go. On Friday, October 19, 2012, Christof Haemmerle wrote: > Yep i Need. 4 Gig with multipathing if possible. > > On Oct 19, 2012, at 10:34 PM, Tim Cook 'cvml', 't...@cook.ms');>> wrote: > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] [zfs] portable zfs send streams (preview webrev)

On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Arne Jansen wrote: > On 10/20/2012 01:10 AM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Arne Jansen > <mailto:sensi...@gmx.net>> wrote: > > > > On 10/19/2012 09:58 PM, Matthew Ahrens wrote: &g

Re: [zfs-discuss] FC HBA for openindiana

On Friday, October 19, 2012, Christof Haemmerle wrote: > hi there, > i need to connect some old raid subsystems to a opensolaris box via fibre > channel. can you recommend any FC HBA? > > thanx > __ > How old? If its 1gbit you'll need a 4gb or slower hba. Qlogic woul

Re: [zfs-discuss] [zfs] portable zfs send streams (preview webrev)

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Arne Jansen wrote: > On 10/19/2012 09:58 PM, Matthew Ahrens wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Arne Jansen > > wrote: > > > > We have finished a beta version of the feature. A webrev for it > > can be found here: > > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] vm server storage mirror

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:45 PM > > > > I would sugge

Re: [zfs-discuss] vm server storage mirror

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris) < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > Here's another one. > > ** ** > > Two identical servers are sitting side by side. They could be connected > to each other via anything (pr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Question about ZFS snapshots

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Stefan Ring wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, andy thomas > wrote: > > I have a ZFS filseystem and create weekly snapshots over a period of 5 > weeks > > called week01, week02, week03, week04 and week05 respectively. Ny > question > > is: how do the snap

Re: [zfs-discuss] all in one server

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Erik Ableson wrote: > >> >> The bigger issue you'll run into will be data sizing as a year's worth of >> snapshot basically means that you're keeping a journal of every single >> write th

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZIL devices and fragmentation

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Jul 30, 2012, at 10:20 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > > - Opprinnelig melding - > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk > > wrote: > > Also keep in mind that if you have an SLOG (ZIL on a separate > > device

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

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Edward Ned Harvey < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: Jim Klimov [mailto:jimkli...@cos.ru] > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 8:42 AM > > To: Edward Ned Harvey > > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] New fast hash algorithm - is it needed?

Re: [zfs-discuss] Two disks giving errors in a raidz pool, advice needed

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Matt Breitbach wrote: > So this is a point of debate that probably deserves being brought to the > floor (probably for the umpteenth time, but indulge me). I've heard from > several people that I'd consider "experts" that once per year scrubbing is > sufficient,

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

Oracle never promised anything. A leaked internal memo does not signify an official company policy or statement. On Apr 18, 2012 11:13 AM, "Freddie Cash" wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Cindy Swearingen > wrote: > >>Hmmm, how come they have encryption and we don't? > > > > As in Solar

Re: [zfs-discuss] Drive upgrades

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Tim Cook wrote: > > You will however have an issue replacing them if one should fail. You > need > > to have the same block count to replace a device, which is why I asked > for a >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Drive upgrades

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Edward Ned Harvey < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Michael Armstrong > > > > Is there a way to quickly ascertain if my seagate/h

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and spread-spares (kinda like GPFS declustered RAID)?

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > Hi Jim, > > On Jan 6, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Jim Klimov wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > I have a new idea up for discussion. > > > > Several RAID systems have implemented "spread" spare drives > > in the sense that there is not an idling disk wait

Re: [zfs-discuss] S11 vs illumos zfs compatiblity

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Jan 5, 2012, at 6:53 AM, sol wrote: > >> if a bug fixed in Illumos is never reported to Oracle by a customer, > >> it would likely never get fixed in Solaris either > > > > > > :-( > > > > I would have liked to think that there was some go

Re: [zfs-discuss] S11 vs illumos zfs compatiblity

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > > So with a de facto fork (illumos) now in place, is it possible that two > > zpools will report the same version yet be incompatible across > > implementations? > > Not likely: the Illu

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Recovery: What do I try next?

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Myers Carpenter wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Myers Carpenter wrote: > >> I would like to pick the brains of the ZFS experts on this list: What >> would you do next to try and recover this zfs pool? >> > > I hate running across threads that ask a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Can I create a mirror for a root rpool?

Do you still need to do the grub install? On Dec 15, 2011 5:40 PM, "Cindy Swearingen" wrote: > Hi Anon, > > The disk that you attach to the root pool will need an SMI label > and a slice 0. > > The syntax to attach a disk to create a mirrored root pool > is like this, for example: > > # zpool att

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

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Andrew Gabriel wrote: > On 11/15/11 23:05, Anatoly wrote: > >> Good day, >> >> The speed of send/recv is around 30-60 MBytes/s for initial send and >> 17-25 MBytes/s for incremental. I have seen lots of setups with 1 disk to >> 100+ disks in pool. But the speed do

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble > > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Peter Tribble wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > Every scrub I've ever done that has found an error required manual > fixing. > > Every pool I've ever created has been raid-z or raid-z2, so the

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Kees Nuyt wrote: > On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:05:29 -0500, Tim Cook wrote: > > >> Doesn't a scrub do more than what > >> 'fsck' does? > >> > > Not really. fsck will work on an offline filesystem to correct er

Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Mark Sandrock wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Nico Williams wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Brian Wilson wrote: > >> I just wanted to add something on fsck on ZFS - because for me that used > to > >> make ZFS 'not ready for prime-time' in 24

Re: [zfs-discuss] Wanted: sanity check for a clustered ZFS idea

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Jim Klimov wrote: > Thanks to all that replied. I hope we may continue the discussion, > but I'm afraid the overall verdict so far is disapproval of the idea. > It is my understanding that those active in discussion considered > it either too limited (in applicati

Re: [zfs-discuss] Wanted: sanity check for a clustered ZFS idea

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Jim Klimov wrote: > 2011-10-14 15:53, Edward Ned Harvey пишет: > > From: > zfs-discuss-bounces@**opensolaris.org[mailto: >>> zfs-discuss- >>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov >>> >>> I guess Richard was correct about the usecase description - >>>

Re: [zfs-discuss] Kernel panic on zpool import. 200G of data inaccessible!

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Stu Whitefish wrote: > > > It seems that obtaining an Oracle support contract or a contract renewal > is equally frustrating. > > I don't have any axe to grind with Oracle. I'm new to the Solaris thing and > wanted to see if it was for me. > > If I was using this

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS performance question over NFS

What are the specs on the client? On Aug 18, 2011 10:28 AM, "Thomas Nau" wrote: > Dear all. > We finally got all the parts for our new fileserver following several > recommendations we got over this list. We use > > Dell R715, 96GB RAM, dual 8-core Opterons > 1 10GE Intel dual-port NIC > 2 LSI 920

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import hangs any zfs-related programs, eats all RAM and dies in swapping hell

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Frank Van Damme wrote: > 2011/6/10 Tim Cook : > > While your memory may be sufficient, that cpu is sorely lacking. Is it > even > > 64bit? There's a reason intel couldn't give those things away in the > early > > 2000s

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Hard link space savings

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Nico Williams wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Scott Lawson > wrote: > > I have an interesting question that may or may not be answerable from > some > > internal > > ZFS semantics. > > This is really standard Unix filesystem semantics. > > > [...] > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Q: pool didn't expand. why? can I force it?

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Johan Eliasson < johan.eliasson.j...@gmail.com> wrote: > I replaced a smaller disk in my tank2, so now they're all 2TB. But look, > zfs still thinks it's a pool of 1.5 TB disks: > > nebol@filez:~# zpool list tank2 > NAMESIZE ALLOC FREECAP DEDUP HEALTH

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import hangs any zfs-related programs, eats all RAM and dies in swapping hell

On Jun 10, 2011 11:52 AM, "Jim Klimov" wrote: > > 2011-06-10 18:00, Steve Gonczi пишет: >> >> Hi Jim, >> >> I wonder what OS version you are running? >> >> There was a problem similar to what you are describing in earlier versions >> in the 13x kernel series. >> >> Should not be present in the 14

Re: [zfs-discuss] Metadata (DDT) Cache Bias

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Edward Ned Harvey < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 9:10 PM > > > Instant Poll : Yes/No ? > > > > No. > > > > Methinks the MRU/MFU balance algorit

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

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Jim Klimov wrote: > Thanks, now I have someone to interrogate, who seems to have > seen these boxes live - if you don't mind ;) > > - Original Message - > From: Richard Elling > Date: Monday, May 30, 2011 22:04 > > > We also commonly see the dual-expander

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

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Paul Kraus wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn > wrote: > > > The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor > > interference. Vendors who want to participate in defining an > interoperable > > standard can achieve sub

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

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Frank Van Damme wrote: > Op 25-05-11 14:27, joerg.moellenk...@sun.com schreef: > > Well, at first ZFS development is no standard body and at the end > > everything has to be measured in compatibility to the Oracle ZFS > > implementation > > Why? Given that ZFS is S

Re: [zfs-discuss] Solaris vs FreeBSD question

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:47 AM, 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 ? > >This is for a home server and the reason I am asking is that about > a year ag

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Evaldas Auryla wrote: > On 05/ 6/11 07:21 PM, Brandon High wrote: > >> On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:15 AM, Ray Van Dolson >> wrote: >> >> We use dedupe on our VMware datastores and typically see 50% savings, >>> often times more. We do of course keep "like" VM's on t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Edward Ned Harvey < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ray Van Dolson > > > > Are any of you out there using dedupe ZFS file systems

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Edward Ned Harvey < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Erik Trimble > > > > ZFS's problem is that it needs ALL the resouces for EACH

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 5/4/2011 4:44 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > >> On 5/4/2011 4:14 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:55:55PM -0700, Brandon H

Re: [zfs-discuss] Deduplication Memory Requirements

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 5/4/2011 4:14 PM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > >> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:55:55PM -0700, Brandon High wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Erik Trimble >>> wrote: >>> I suspect that NetApp does the following to limit the

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

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > 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"

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

2011/3/12 Fred Liu > Tim, > > > > Thanks. > > > > Is there a mapping mechanism like what DataOnTap does to map the > permission/acl between NIS/LDAP and AD? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Fred > > > > *From:* Tim Cook [mailto:t...@coo

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

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Fred Liu wrote: > Hi, > > > > Is it possible to run both CIFS and NFS on one file system over ZFS? > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > Fred > Yes, but managing permissions in that scenario is generally a nightmare. If you're using NFSv4 with AD integration, it's a bi

Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot replace c10t0d0 with c10t0d0: device is too small

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Robert Hartzell wrote: > In 2007 I bought 6 WD1600JS 160GB sata disks and used 4 to create a raidz > storage pool and then shelved the other two for spares. One of the disks > failed last night so I shut down the server and replaced it with a spare. > When I tried

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > On 01/ 4/11 09:15 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> On 01/ 3/11 05:08 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: >> >> On 12/26/10 05:40 AM, Tim Cook wr

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > 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 > wrote: > >> >> There are more people outs

Re: [zfs-discuss] A few questions

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:05 AM, Deano wrote: > > > The question therefore is, is there room in the software implementation to > achieve performance and reliability numbers similar to expensive drives > whilst using relative cheap drives? > > >

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

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 12/25/2010 6:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling >>> >>> And people should note that Netapp filed their patents starti

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

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Edward Ned Harvey < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling > > > > And people should note that Netapp filed their patent

Re: [zfs-discuss] Disk failed, System not booting

Just boot off a live cd, import the pool, and swap it that way. I'm guessing you havent changed your failmode to continue? On Dec 20, 2010 10:48 AM, "Albert Frenz" wrote: > hi there, > > i got freenas installed with a raidz1 pool of 3 disks. one of them now failed and it gives me errors like "Unr

Re: [zfs-discuss] OT: anyone aware how to obtain 1.8.0 for X2100M2?

You have to have a support contract to download BIOS and firmware now. On Dec 19, 2010 12:29 PM, "Eugen Leitl" wrote: > > I realize this is off-topic, but Oracle has completely > screwed up the support site from Sun. I figured someone > here would know how to obtain > > Sun Fire X2100 M2 Server So

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mixing different disk sizes in a pool?

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Ian D wrote: > > The answer really depends on what you want to do with > > pool(s). You'll > > have to provide more information. > > Get the maximum of very random IOPS I get can out of those drives for > database usage. > -- > > Random IOPS won't max out the SAS

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mixing different disk sizes in a pool?

On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Ian D wrote: > Another question: all those disks are on Dell MD1000 JBODs (11 of them) > and we have 12 SAS ports on three LSI 9200-16e HBAs. Is there any point > connecting each JBOD on a separate port or is it ok cascading them in groups > of three? Is there

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

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Linder, Doug wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > The reason for not being able to use ZFS under Linux is not the license > > used by ZFS but the missing will for integration. > > > > Several lawyers explained already why adding ZFS to the Linux would > > just cre

Re: [zfs-discuss] Guide to COMSTAR iSCSI?

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Chris Mosetick wrote: > I have found this post from Mike La Spina to be very detailed covering this > topic, yet I could not seem to get it to work right on my first hasty > attempt a while back. Let me know if you have success, or adjustments that > get this to

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

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, Tim Cook wrote: > > You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It is >> your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every

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

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Tim Cook wrote: > > > > I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents > are > > > invalid because of prior art. > > > > >

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

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Joerg Schilling < joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Edward Ned Harvey > wrote: > > > Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune > to netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band > together and fund t

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

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > >> It's been a while since I last heard anybody say anything about this. >> What's the latest version of publicly >> released ZFS? Has oracle made it closed-

Re: [zfs-discuss] 3TB HDD in ZFS

It's based on a jumper on most new drives. On Dec 6, 2010 8:41 PM, "taemun" wrote: > On 7 December 2010 13:25, Brandon High wrote: >> >> There shouldn't be any problems using a 3TB drive with Solaris, so >> long as you're using a 64-bit kernel. Recent versions of zfs should >> properly recognize

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zfs ignoring spares?

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > Hi all > > I have installed a new server with 77 2TB drives in 11 7-drive RAIDz2 > VDEVs, all on WD Black drives. Now, it seems two of these drives were bad, > one of them had a bunch of errors, the other was very slow. After zfs > offl

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ RevoDrive ZFS support

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Krunal Desai wrote: > > There are problems with Sandforce controllers, according to forum posts. > Buggy firmware. And in practice, Sandforce is far below it's theoretical > values. I expect Intel to have fewer problems. > > I believe it's more the firmware (and p

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ RevoDrive ZFS support

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:42 AM, David Magda wrote: > On Nov 27, 2010, at 16:14, Tim Cook wrote: > > You don't need drivers for any SATA based SSD. It shows up as a standard >> hard drive and plugs into a standard SATA port. By the time the G3 Intel >> drive is o

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ RevoDrive ZFS support

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Orvar Korvar < knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote: > There are problems with Sandforce controllers, according to forum posts. > Buggy firmware. And in practice, Sandforce is far below it's theoretical > values. I expect Intel to have fewer problems. > > Accordin

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ext. UPS-backed SATA SSD ZIL?

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 11/27/2010 6:50 PM, Christopher George wrote: > >> Furthermore, I don't think "1 hour sustained" is a very accurate >>> benchmark. >>> Most workloads are bursty in nature. >>> >> The IOPS degradation is additive, the length of the first and

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ RevoDrive ZFS support

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Orvar Korvar < knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I am waiting for the next gen Intel SSD drives, G3. They are arriving very > soon. And from what I can infer by reading here, I can use it without > issues. Solaris will recognize the Intel SDD drive without a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ext. UPS-backed SATA SSD ZIL?

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Christopher George wrote: > > Why would you disable TRIM on an SSD benchmark? > > Because ZFS does *not* support TRIM, so the benchmarks > are configured to replicate actual ZIL Accelerator workloads. > > > If you're doing sustained high-IOPS workloads like that, t

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ RevoDrive ZFS support

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Orvar Korvar < knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Your system drive on a Solaris system generally doesn't see enough I/O > activity to require the kind of IOPS you can get out of most modern SSD's. " > > My system drive sees a lot of activity, to the degree

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ RevoDrive ZFS support

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Orvar Korvar < knatte_fnatte_tja...@yahoo.com> wrote: > A noob question: > > These drives that people talk about, can you use them as a system disc too? > Install Solaris 11 Express on them? Or can you only use them as a L2ARC or > Zil? > -- > > They're a standard

Re: [zfs-discuss] Ext. UPS-backed SATA SSD ZIL?

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Christopher George wrote: > > I haven't had a chance to test a Vertex 2 PRO against my 2 EX, and I'd > > be interested if anyone else has. > > I recently presented at the OpenStorage Summit 2010 and compared > exactly the three devices you mention in your post (Ver

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Crypto in Oracle Solaris 11 Express

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Nov 16, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Rthoreau wrote: > > > > I just think that some people might need that little > > extra nudge that a few graphs and test would provide. If it happens to > > also come with a few good practices you could save a lo

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import is this safe to use "-f" option in this case ?

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Jim Dunham wrote: > Tim, > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Jim Dunham wrote: > >> sridhar, >> >> > I have done the following (which is required for my case) >> > >> > Created a zpool (smpool) on a device/LUN from an array (IBM 6K) on host1 >> > created a arr

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import is this safe to use "-f" option in this case ?

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Jim Dunham wrote: > sridhar, > > > I have done the following (which is required for my case) > > > > Created a zpool (smpool) on a device/LUN from an array (IBM 6K) on host1 > > created a array level snapshot of the device using "dscli" to another > device which i

Re: [zfs-discuss] Faster than 1G Ether... ESX to ZFS

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Miles Nordin wrote: > >>>>> "tc" == Tim Cook writes: > >tc> Channeling Ethernet will not make it any faster. Each >tc> individual connection will be limited to 1gbit. iSCSI with >tc> mpxio may wor

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Administation Concole

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: > On 11/13/2010 1:06 PM, Khushil Dep wrote: > > Think those might have been the thumper screen shots? Take a look at > nexentastor > > On 13 Nov 2010 20:12, "Brad Henderson" > wrote: > > I am new to OpenSolaris and I have been reading abou

  1   2   3   4   5   >