Re: [zfs-discuss] Best practice recommendations for backing up to ZFS Fileserver

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/19/2008 01:59:29 AM: > Ares Drake wrote: > > Greetings. > > > > I am currently looking into setting up a better backup solution for our > > family. > > > > I own a ZFS Fileserver with a 5x500GB raidz. I want to back up data (not > > the OS itself) from multiple PCs r

[zfs-discuss] scrub restart patch status..

Any news on if the scrub/resilver/snap reset patch will make it into 10/08 update? Thanks! Wade Stuart we are fallon P: 612.758.2660 C: 612.877.0385 ** Fallon has moved. Effective May 19, 2008 our address is 901 Marquette Ave, Suite 2400, Minneapolis, MN 55402

Re: [zfs-discuss] Solved - a big THANKS to Victor Latushkin @ Sun / Moscow

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/11/2008 09:36:02 PM: > > On Oct 10, 2008, at 7:55 PM 10/10/, David Magda wrote: > > > > > If someone finds themselves in this position, what advice can be > > followed to minimize risks? > > Can you ask for two LUNs on different physical SAN devices and have > an

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Mirrors braindead?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/07/2008 01:10:51 PM: > I don't know if this is already available in S10 10/08, but in > opensolaris build > 71 you can set the: > > zpool failmode property > > see: > http://opensolaris.org/os/community/arc/caselog/2007/567/ > > available options are: > > The proper

Re: [zfs-discuss] Comments on green-bytes

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/07/2008 10:59:06 AM: > On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> > >> Wouldn't it be great if programmers could just focus on writing > >> code rather than having to worry about getting sued over whether > >> someone else is able or not to make a derivative p

Re: [zfs-discuss] Comments on green-bytes

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/07/2008 07:15:46 AM: > Hello Wade, > > Monday, October 6, 2008, 8:56:12 PM, you wrote: > > WSfc> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/06/2008 01:57:10 PM: > > >> Hi all > >> > >> In another thread a short while ago.. A cool little movie with some > >> gumballs was all we got

Re: [zfs-discuss] Comments on green-bytes

> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:00 PM, "C. Bergström" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > Matt Aitkenhead wrote: > > I see that you have wasted no time. I'm still determining if you > have a sincere interest in working with us or alternatively have an > axe to grind. The latter is shining through. > > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Comments on green-bytes

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/06/2008 01:57:10 PM: > Hi all > > In another thread a short while ago.. A cool little movie with some > gumballs was all we got to learn about green-bytes. The product > launched and maybe some of the people that follow this list have had a > chance to take a look at

Re: [zfs-discuss] Automatic removal of old snapshots

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/25/2008 10:34:41 AM: > On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 10:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > That snap schedule seems reasonable to me. Relate to the cleanup part > > of the doc linked, do you know the rational for killing off the most recent > > (15 minute and hour

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs-auto-snapshot default schedules

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/25/2008 09:16:48 AM: > On 25 Sep 2008, at 14:40, Ross wrote: > > > For a default setup, I would have thought a years worth of data > > would be enough, something like: > > Given that this can presumably be configured to suit everyone's > particular data retention plan

Re: [zfs-discuss] Automatic removal of old snapshots

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/25/2008 05:30:04 AM: > On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 12:07 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:43:51AM +0200, Nils Goroll wrote: > > > Storage Checkpoints in Veritas software has this feature (removing > > the oldest checkpoint in case of 100% fil

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS with Fusion-IO?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/24/2008 05:54:45 AM: > I agree, it looks like it would be perfect, but unfortunately > without Solaris drivers it's pretty much a non starter. > > That hasn't stopped me pestering Fusion-IO wherever I can though to > see if they are willing to develop Solaris drivers,

Re: [zfs-discuss] resilver keeps starting over? snv_95

Are you doing snaps? If so unless you have the new bits to handle the issue, each snap restarts a scrub or resilver. Thanks! Wade Stuart we are fallon P: 612.758.2660 C: 612.877.0385 ** Fallon has moved. Effective May 19, 2008 our address is 901 Marquette Ave, Suite 2400, Minneapolis, MN

Re: [zfs-discuss] Do you grok it?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/15/2008 11:32:15 PM: > Brandon High wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Did I detect a (well-done) metaphor for shared ZFS? > >> > > > > Probably not. It looks like a deduplication / MAID solution. > > > > Yeah

Re: [zfs-discuss] Do you grok it?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/16/2008 03:10:52 AM: > Marion Hakanson wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > > >> greenBytes has a very well produced teaser commercial on their site. > >> http://www.green-bytes.com > >> Actually, I think it is one of the better commercials done by > tech compan

Re: [zfs-discuss] send/receive statistics

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/04/2008 03:40:46 PM: > > On 4-Sep-08, at 4:52 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > > > Marcelo Leal wrote: > >> Hello all, > >> Any plans (or already have), a send/receive way to get the > >> transfer backup statistics? I mean, the "how much" was transfered, > >> time and/or

Re: [zfs-discuss] x4500 vs AVS ?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/04/2008 02:19:23 AM: > Jorgen Lundman wrote: > > > We did ask our vendor, but we were just told that AVS does not support > > x4500. > > > The officially supported AVS works on the X4500 since the X4500 came > out. But, although Jim Dunham and others will tell you oth

Re: [zfs-discuss] eWeek: corrupt file brought down FAA's antiquated IT system

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/28/2008 09:00:23 AM: > > On 28-Aug-08, at 10:54 AM, Toby Thain wrote: > > > > > On 28-Aug-08, at 10:11 AM, Richard Elling wrote: > > > >> It is rare to see this sort of "CNN Moment" attributed to file > >> corruption. > >> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Co

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS deduplication

> > > > Does some script-usable ZFS API (if any) provide for fetching > block/file hashes (checksums) stored in the filesystem itself? In > fact, am I wrong to expect file-checksums to be readily available? > > > > Yes. Files are not checksummed, blocks are checksummed. > -- richard Further, e

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS deduplication

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/22/2008 04:26:35 PM: > Just my 2c: Is it possible to do an "offline" dedup, kind of like > snapshotting? > > What I mean in practice, is: we make many Solaris full-root zones. > They share a lot of data as complete files. This is kind of easy to > save space - make

Re: [zfs-discuss] Forensic analysis [was: more ZFS recovery]

> > As others have noted, the COW nature of ZFS means that there is a > good chance that on a mostly-empty pool, previous data is still intact > long after you might think it is gone. A utility to recover such data is > (IMHO) more likely to be in the category of forensic analysis than > a mount (

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS deduplication

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/22/2008 11:48:30 AM: > Chris Cosby wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 11:19 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > wrote: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote on 07/22/2008 > > 09:58:53 AM: > > > > > To

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS deduplication

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/22/2008 09:58:53 AM: > To do dedup properly, it seems like there would have to be some > overly complicated methodology for a sort of delayed dedup of the > data. For speed, you'd want your writes to go straight into the > cache and get flushed out as quickly as possi

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS deduplication

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/22/2008 08:05:01 AM: > > Hi All > >Is there any hope for deduplication on ZFS ? > >Mertol Ozyoney > >Storage Practice - Sales Manager > >Sun Microsystems > > Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > There is always hope. > > Seriously thought, looking at http://en.wikipedia. > org

Re: [zfs-discuss] scrub never finishes

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/13/2008 11:29:07 PM: > ZFS co-inventor Matt Ahrens recently fixed this: > > 6343667 scrub/resilver has to start over when a snapshot is taken > > Trust me when I tell you that solving this correctly was much harder > than you might expect. Thanks again, Matt. > > Je

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS deduplication

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/08/2008 01:26:15 PM: > Something else came to mind which is a negative regarding > deduplication. When zfs writes new sequential files, it should try to > allocate blocks in a way which minimizes "fragmentation" (disk seeks). > Disk seeks are the bane of existing sto

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS deduplication

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/08/2008 03:08:26 AM: > > > > Does anyone know a tool that can look over a dataset and give > > duplication statistics? I'm not looking for something incredibly > > efficient but I'd like to know how much it would actually benefit our > > Check out the following blog

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS deduplication

> Even better would be using the ZFS block checksums (assuming we are only > summing the data, not it's position or time :)... > > Then we could have two files that have 90% the same blocks, and still > get some dedup value... ;) Yes, but you will need to add some sort of highly collision resista

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS configuration for VMware

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/27/2008 03:39:41 AM: > I'm likely to be building a ZFS server to act as NFS shared storage > for a couple of VMware ESX servers. Does anybody have experience of > using ZFS with VMware like this, and can anybody confirm the best > zpool configuration? > > The serve

Re: [zfs-discuss] Per-user home filesystems and OS-X Leopard anomaly

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/21/2008 10:38:10 AM: > > On May 21, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > > I encountered an issue that people using OS-X systems as NFS clients > > need to be aware of. While not strictly a ZFS issue, it may be > > encounted most often by ZFS users since ZFS

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sanity check -- x4500 storage server for enterprise file service

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/08/2008 02:31:43 PM: > Luke Scharf wrote: > > Dave wrote: > >> On 05/08/2008 08:11 AM, Ross wrote: > >> > >>> It may be an obvious point, but are you aware that snapshots > need to be stopped any time a disk fails? It's something to > consider if you're planning freq

Re: [zfs-discuss] How many ZFS pools is it sensible to use on a single server?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/08/2008 11:22:53 AM: > In our environment, the politically and administratively simplest > approach to managing our storage is to give each separate group at > least one ZFS pool of their own (into which they will put their various > filesystems). This could lead to

Re: [zfs-discuss] Per filesystem scrub

Jeff Bonwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/05/2008 01:33:05 AM: > > Aye, or better yet -- give the scrub/resilver/snap reset issue fix very > > high priority. As it stands snapshots are impossible when you need to > > resilver and scrub (even on supposedly sun supported thumper configs). > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Simple monitoring of ZFS pools, email alerts?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/02/2008 04:54:58 PM: > On 02 April, 2008 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent me these 3,4K bytes: > > > Been goggling around on this to no avail... > > > > We're hoping to soon put into production an x4500 with a big ZFS pool, > > replacing a (piece of junk) NAS head which repla

Re: [zfs-discuss] Per filesystem scrub

ou need to resilver and scrub (even on supposedly sun supported thumper configs). -Wade Stuart ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Snapshots silently eating user quota

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/20/2008 05:12:01 PM: > All, > I assume this issue is pretty old given the time ZFS has been > around. I have tried searching the list but could not get understand > the structure of how ZFS actually takes snapshot space into account. > Snapshot space recording does n

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs backups to tape

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/14/2008 04:48:47 PM: > > > Carson Gaspar wrote: > Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, 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? > ufsdu

Re: [zfs-discuss] five megabytes per second with Microsoft iSCSI initiator (2.06)

me know the results. > > PS: While there are some bugs in the Solaris iSCSI target system (Mostly > about failover and recovery processes) it performs quite well. The problem > is as always MS itself. :) > Whatever you did to create this email -- please don

Re: [zfs-discuss] sharenfs with over 10000 file systems

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/28/2008 09:11:53 AM: > I too am having the same issues. I started out using Solaris 10 > 8/07 release. I could create all the filesystems, 47,000 > filesystems, but if you needed to reboot, patch, shutdown Very > bad. So then I read about sharemgr and how it w

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS versus VxFS as file system inside Netbackup 6.0 DSSU

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/15/2008 03:04:15 PM: > > Sri > Paul Kraus wrote: > > On 1/15/08, Selim Daoud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> with zfs you can compress data on disk ...that is a grat advantage > >> when doing backup to disk > >> also, for DSSU you need to multiply number of fil

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS problem after disk faliure

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/10/2008 08:07:37 PM: > I finaly found the cause of the error > > Since my disks are mounted in a cassette with four in each I had to > disconnect all cables to them to replace the crashed disk. > > When re-attaching the cables I reversed the order of them by > acc

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup in general (was "Does ZFS handle a SATA II ' port multiplier' ?")

> > > > If you care enough to do backups, at least care enough to be > > able to restore. For my home backups, I use portable drives with > > copies=2 or 3 and compression enabled. I don't fool with > > incrementals, but many people do. The failure mode I'm worried > > about is decay, as the dri

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mail system errors (On Topic).

Please see below for an example. -Wade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/07/2007 03:07:29 PM: > > > > I keep getting ETOOMUCHTROLL errors thrown while > > reading this list, is > > there a list admin that can clean up the mess? I > > would hope that repeated > > personal attacks could be consider

Re: [zfs-discuss] OT: NTFS Single Instance Storage (Re: Yager on ZFS

Thanks Darren. I found another link that goes into the 2003 implementation: http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/archive/tags/Single+Instance+Store+_2800_SIS_2900_/default.aspx It looks pretty nice, although I am not sure about the userland dedup service design -- I would like to see it implemented

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

Darren, Do you happen to have any links for this? I have not seen anything about NTFS and CAS/dedupe besides some of the third party apps/services that just use NTFS as their backing store. Thanks! Wade Stuart Fallon Worldwide P: 612.758.2660 C: 612.877.0385 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on

[zfs-discuss] Mail system errors (On Topic).

I keep getting ETOOMUCHTROLL errors thrown while reading this list, is there a list admin that can clean up the mess? I would hope that repeated personal attacks could be considered grounds for removal/blocking. Wade Stuart Fallon Worldwide P: 612.758.2660 C: 612.877.0385

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/06/2007 09:58:00 AM: > On Dec 6, 2007 1:13 AM, Bakul Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Note that I don't wish to argue for/against zfs/billtodd but > > the comment above about "no *real* opensource software > > alternative zfs automating checksumming and simple >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Why did resilvering restart?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/20/2007 10:11:50 AM: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:01:49AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Resilver and scrub are broken and restart when a snapshot is created > > -- the current workaround is to disable snaps while resilvering, > > the ZFS team is working on the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Why did resilvering restart?

Resilver and scrub are broken and restart when a snapshot is created -- the current workaround is to disable snaps while resilvering, the ZFS team is working on the issue for a long term fix. -Wade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/20/2007 09:58:19 AM: > On b66: > # zpool replace tww c0t600A0B800

Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS

> > On 9-Nov-07, at 2:45 AM, can you guess? wrote: > > >>> Au contraire: I estimate its worth quite > >> accurately from the undetected error rates reported > >> in the CERN "Data Integrity" paper published last > >> April (first hit if you Google 'cern "data > >> integrity"'). > >>> > While

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on EMC Symmetrix

It may make sense to post your code level host->emc and your topology/hba(type and firmware level) info for the systems you are having the issues on. EMC setups are very well known to have their reliability linked to code level and topology -- a machine running 16 code against backreved emulex + c

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool status backwards scrub progress on when using iostat

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/09/2007 01:11:16 PM: > I am using a x4500 with a single "4*( raid2z 9 + 2)+ 2 spare" pool. > I some bad blocks on one of the disks > Oct 9 13:36:01 zeta1 scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: /[EMAIL > PROTECTED], > 0/pci1022,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/pci11ab,[EMAIL PROT

[zfs-discuss] resilver/scrub resetting..

Just checking status on the resilver/scrub + snap reset issue-- it is very painful for large pools such as exist on thumpers that make heavy use of snaps. Is this still on track for u5/pre-u5 or has it changed? Is there a different view of these bugs with more information so I do no need to pes

Re: [zfs-discuss] I/O freeze after a disk failure

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/12/2007 08:04:33 AM: > > Gino wrote: > > > The real problem is that ZFS should stop to force > > kernel panics. > > > > > I found these panics very annoying, too. And even > > more that the zpool > > was faulted afterwards. But my problem is that when > > someone ask

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS/WAFL lawsuit

> > Invalidating COW filesystem patents would of course be the best. > > Unfortunately those lawsuits are usually not handled in the open > and in order > > to understand everything you would need to know about the > background interests > > of both parties. > > IANAL, but I was under the impressi

Re: [zfs-discuss] An Academic Sysadmin's Lament for ZFS ?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/10/2007 12:13:18 PM: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Very true, you could even pay people to track down heavy users and > > bonk them on the head. Why is everyone responding with alternate routes to > > a simple need? > > For the simple reason that sometimes

Re: [zfs-discuss] An Academic Sysadmin's Lament for ZFS ?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/10/2007 11:40:16 AM: > Richard Elling wrote: > > There is also a long tail situation here, which is how I approached the > > problem at eng.Auburn.edu. 1% of the users will use > 90% of the space. For > > them, I had special places. For everyone else, they were lump

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS/WAFL lawsuit

> > > > If that's the correct reading of the story then the story is very badly > > written. Or am I misreading the story? > > Hmmm, the order itself goes on and on about RAM. I think the judge > should have been clearer that the issue is the specific data, as opposed > to generic RAM conten

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS/WAFL lawsuit

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 09/06/2007 01:14:56 PM: > > > >It really is a shot in the dark at this point, you really never know what > >will happen in court (take the example of the recent court decision that > >all data in RAM be held for discovery ?!WHAT, HEAD HURTS!?). But at the > >end of

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS/WAFL lawsuit

> > >Playing with patent portfolios is the modern equivalent to playing > the "mutually assured destruction" game with nuclear missiles. Yes > we all appreciate how dangereous this game is and how high the > stakes are. But ... notice that a live/armed ballistic missile has > never been fired

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS/WAFL lawsuit

This is my personal opinion and all, but even knowing that Sun encourages open conversations on these mailing lists and blogs it seems to falter common sense for people from @sun.com to be commenting on this topic. It seems like something users should be aware of, but if I were working

[zfs-discuss] Solaris 10 8/2007 and Bug tracking...

Known (Bug is root caused) (does not tell me anything about the status) Description See comments. (What Comments?) Work Around N/A Thanks! Wade Stuart Fallon Worldwide P: 612.758.2660 C: 612.877.0385 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-di

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS quota

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/07/2007 10:53:28 AM: > Hello > > Is there a way to limit size of filesystem not including snapshots? > Or even better size of data on filesystem regardless of compression. > If not is it planned? > It is hard to explain to user that it is normal that after delet

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Features when Using Enterprise Arrays

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 08/03/2007 01:35:04 PM: > The OP here is posting the "Z"illion dollar question ... And > apologies in advance for the verbal diarrhea. > > Most of the Enterprise Level systems people here (my company) look > at ZFS and say, "Wow that's really cool...but..." What co

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS problems in dCache

> On 01/08/2007, at 7:50 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Boyd Adamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Or alternatively, are you comparing ZFS(Fuse) on Linux with XFS on > >> Linux? That doesn't seem to make sense since the userspace > >> implementation will always suffer. > >> > >> Someone h

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and powerpath

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/13/2007 02:21:52 PM: > Peter Tribble wrote: > > > I've not got that far. During an import, ZFS just pokes around - there > > doesn't seem to be an explicit way to tell it which particular devices > > or SAN paths to use. > > You can't tell it which devices to use

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and powerpath

Can you post a "powermt display dev=all", a zpool status and format command? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/13/2007 09:38:01 AM: > How much fun can you have with a simple thing like powerpath? > > Here's the story: I have a (remote) system with access to a couple > of EMC LUNs. Originally,

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool on USB flash disk

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 07/12/2007 07:28:29 AM: > Hi all, > > Nevada build 67, USB flash voayager, ... > > created zpool on one of the FDISK partitions on the flash drive, zpool > import export works fine, > > tried to take the USB stick out of the system while the pool is mounted, > ..., 3

Re: [zfs-discuss] Pics

These must be examples of data that was corrupted on some other filesystem? Bitrot certainly did a number on these. -Wade ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ReiserFS4 like metadata/search

> > I guess my real question should have been, IF it turns out that quick > indexing and the like are really the next hot thing, would ZFS support > it (yes from what i gathered earlier on this list). > > Come to think of it, the biggest difference of putting this > info in the FS layer or in a

Re: [zfs-discuss] ReiserFS4 like metadata/search

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/27/2007 06:25:47 PM: > The only thing I haven't found in zfs yet, is metadata etc info. > > The previous 'next best thing' in FS was of course ReiserFS (4). Reiser3 > was quite a nice thing, fast, journaled and all that, but Reiser4 > promised to bring all those

Re: [zfs-discuss] ARC and patents

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/06/2007 11:45:48 AM: > With US patent laws the way they are, no one but a patent lawyer > could safely give you an answer. > If by some chance a patent lawyer is lurking and decided to comment, > none of the rest of us > could safely read such comments. No one w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Remove files when at quota limit

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/15/2007 09:01:00 AM: > Has anyone else run into this situation? Does anyone have any > solutions other than removing snapshots or increasing the quota? > I'd like to put in an RFE to reserve some space so files can be > removed when users are at their quota. Any

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: A quick ZFS question: RAID-Z Disk Replacement + Growth ?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/14/2007 02:10:28 PM: > I did this on Solaris 10u3. 4 120GB -> 4 500GB drives. Replace, > resilver; repeat until all all drives replaced. Just beware of the long resilver times -- on a 500gb x 6 raidz2 group at 70% used space a resilver takes 7+days where snaps

Re: [zfs-discuss] Is this a workable ORACLE disaster recovery solution?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/10/2007 02:19:17 PM: > I have a scenario where I have several ORACLE databases. I'm trying to > keep system downtime to a minimum for business reasons. I've created > zpools on three devices, an internal 148 Gb drive (data) and two > partitions on an HP SAN.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: gzip compression throttles system?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05/03/2007 11:35:24 AM: > > with recent bits ZFS compression is now handled concurrently with > many CPUs working on different records. > So this load will burn more CPUs and acheive it's results > (compression) faster. > > So the observed pauses should be consiste

Re: [zfs-discuss] XServe Raid & Complex Storage Considerations

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/25/2007 10:17:50 AM: > hello the list, > > After reading the _excellent_ ZFS Best Practices Guide, I've seen in the > section: ZFS and Complex Storage Consideration that we should configure > the storage system to ignore command which will flush the memory into >

Re: [zfs-discuss] LZO compression?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/18/2007 10:30:41 AM: > Hi, > > I don't know if this has been discussed before, but have you thought > about adding LZO compression to ZFS? > > One zfs-fuse user has provided a patch which implements LZO compression, > and he claims better compression ratios *and

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs question as to sizes

Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/16/2007 05:29:05 PM: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 05:13:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Why it was considered a valid data column in its current state is > > anyone's guess. > > > > This column is precise and valid. It represents the am

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs question as to sizes

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/16/2007 04:57:43 PM: > one pool is mirror on 300gb dirives and the other is raidz1 on 7 x > 143gb drives. > > I did make clone of my zfs file systems with their snaps and something is not > right, sizes do not match... anyway here is what I have: > > [17:50:32] [

Re: [zfs-discuss] quickly move files in different zfs in same zpool

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/12/2007 06:28:16 PM: > > On 12-Apr-07, at 7:42 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > > > On April 12, 2007 7:10:34 PM -0300 Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On 12-Apr-07, at 3:40 PM, Sean Liu wrote: > >> > >>> In good'ol days if you are moving file/files i

Re: [zfs-discuss] FreeBSD's system flags.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/12/2007 04:47:46 PM: > On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 14:09 -0600, Mark Shellenbaum wrote: > > Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > > > What are your suggestions? > > > > > > > I am currently working on adding a number of the BSD flags into ZFS. > > The existance of the FreeBSD

Re: [zfs-discuss] Benchmarking

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/12/2007 04:47:06 PM: > Management here is worried about performance under ZFS because they had > a bad experience with Instant Image a number of years ago. When iiamd > was used, server performance was reduced to a crawl. Hence they want > proof in the form of

Re: [zfs-discuss] today panic ...

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/28/2007 06:34:12 AM: > Hi Gino, > > this looks like an instance of bug 6458218 (see > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6458218) > > The fix for this bug is integrated into snv_60. > > Kind regards, > Victor I know I may be somewhat of an outsider

Fw: [zfs-discuss] Re: Is there any performance problem with hard links in ZFS?

- Forwarded by Wade Stuart/FALMSP/USA/NA/FALLON on 03/26/07 11:30 AM - Wade Stuart/FALMSP/USA/NA/FALLON wrote on 03/26/2007 11:02:08 AM: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/26/2007 10:58:07 AM: > > > i have tested links performance. and i have got such results: > > w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup of ZFS Filesystem with ACL 4

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/26/2007 11:00:23 AM: > Tomas Ögren wrote: > > On 26 March, 2007 - Hans-Juergen Schnitzer sent me these 3,5K bytes: > > > >> I am sorry, we don't have oracle databases on zfs filesystems > >> (colleagues of mine are currently exploring RMAN to backup oracle > >> d

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS with raidz

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/21/2007 11:00:43 AM: > > >The problem is that in order to restrict disk usage, ZFS *requires* > >that you create this many filesystems. I think most in this situation > >would prefer not to have to do that. The two solutions I see would > >be to add user quotas

[zfs-discuss] ZFS resilver/snap/scrub resetting status?

Folks, Is there any update on the progress of fixing the resilver/snap/scrub reset issues? If the bits have been pushed is there a patch for Solaris 10U3? http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6343667 Also the scrub/resilver priority setting? http://bugs.opensolaris.o

Re: [zfs-discuss] Data Management API

monitoring. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/perf-discuss/2006-May/000540.html Wade Stuart Fallon Worldwide P: 612.758.2660 C: 612.877.0385 Conjeturo que no soy buen cocinero. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/20/2007 11:40:15 AM: > Erast Benson wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 09:29

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS/UFS layout for 4 disk servers

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/07/2007 12:31:14 PM: > So it sounds like the consensus is that I should not worry about > using slices with ZFS > and the swap best practice doesn't really apply to my situation of a > 4 disk x4200. > > So in summary(please confirm) this is what we are saying is

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS stalling problem

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/05/2007 03:56:28 AM: > one question, > is there a way to stop the default txg push behaviour (push at regular > timestep-- default is 5sec) but instead push them "on the fly"...I > would imagine this is better in the case of an application doing big > sequential

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: How to interrupt a zpool scrub?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/05/2007 04:18:44 AM: > How embarrassing is that? Pete kindly pointed me to the man page > where it clearly states that I should use "zpool scrub [-s] pool". - > s for "Stop scrubbing". Sorry folks, I just looked in the > Administration guide where I couldn't find

Re: [zfs-discuss] renumbering and its potential side effects.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/01/2007 10:05:44 AM: > i am forced to reinstall s10u3 on my x4500. SP 1.1.1. exported zpool, > and discovered during the reinstall that the controller numbers have > changed. what used to be c5t0d0 is now c6t0d0. it it happens the exported > zpool is using only h

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Efficiency when reading the same file blocks

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/26/2007 11:36:18 AM: > Jeff Davis wrote: > >> Given your question are you about to come back with a > >> case where you are not > >> seeing this? > > > > Actually, the case where I saw the bad behavior was in Linux using > the CFQ I/O scheduler. When reading the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Convert ufs to zfs possible ?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/23/2007 02:15:44 PM: > Is there anyway to convert existing ufs file system to zfs ? Not live, good old tape-restore or transfer to new disk methods only. You may minimize downtime depending on workload by doing a disk->disk copy live and then doing an rsync r

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: tracking error to file

> > If you run a 'zpool scrub preplica-1', then the persistent error log > will be cleaned up. In the future, we'll have a background scrubber > to make your life easier. > > eric Eric, Great news! Are there any details about how this will be implemented yet? I am most curious to ho

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: [osol-help] How to recover from "rm *"?

> > > > > > There's a fundamental problem with an undelete facility. > > > > > >$ echo > FILE > > >$ undelete FILE > > >cannot undelete FILE: file exists > > > > > > Why the assumption that an undelete command would be brain dead -- this IS > > Unix. =) Seems like a low bar issue,

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: [osol-help] How to recover from "rm *"?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/20/2007 08:10:59 AM: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 02:07:41PM +0100, Robert Milkowski wrote: > > Hello Jeremy, > > > > Monday, February 19, 2007, 1:58:18 PM, you wrote: > > > > >> Something similar was proposed here before and IIRC someone even has a > > >> working i

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best Practises => Keep Pool Below 80%?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/13/2007 09:48:54 AM: > In the ZFS Best Practises Guide here: > > http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ZFS_Best_Practices_Guide > > It says: > >``Currently, pool performance can degrade when a pool is very full > and file systems are updated fre

Re: Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Peculiar behavior of snapshot after zfs receive

> Hello Wade, > > Thursday, February 8, 2007, 8:00:40 PM, you wrote: > > > > > >> > >> TW> Am I using send/recv incorrectly or is there something else > >> going on here that > >> TW> I am missing? > >> > >> > >> It's a known bug. > >> > >> umount and rollback file system on host 2. You should

  1   2   >