Lori Alt wrote:
>> Since it seems that we won't be swapping on ZVOLS I need to find out
>> more how we will be providing swap and dump space in a root pool.
>>
> The current plan is to provide what we're calling (for lack of a
> better term. I'm open to suggestions.) a "pseudo-zvol". It's
> p
Lori Alt wrote:
> Torrey McMahon wrote:
>> I really don't want to bring this up but ...
>>
>> Why do we still tell people to use swap volumes?
>
> Jeff Bonwick has suggested a fix to 6528296 (system
> hang while zvol swap space shorted). If we can get that
> fixed, then it may become safe to use
Torrey McMahon wrote:
> I really don't want to bring this up but ...
>
> Why do we still tell people to use swap volumes?
Jeff Bonwick has suggested a fix to 6528296 (system
hang while zvol swap space shorted). If we can get that
fixed, then it may become safe to use true zvols for swap.
I'll up
Daniel Carosone wrote:
>>> (for lack of a better term. I'm open to suggestions.) a
>>> "pseudo-zvol". It's meant to be a low
>>> overhead way to emulate a slice within a pool. So
>>> no COW or related zfs features
>> Are these a zslice?
>
> zbart - "Don't have a CoW, man!"
but we already have /
> > (for lack of a better term. I'm open to suggestions.) a
> > "pseudo-zvol". It's meant to be a low
> > overhead way to emulate a slice within a pool. So
> > no COW or related zfs features
>
> Are these a zslice?
zbart - "Don't have a CoW, man!"
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
Bart Smaalders wrote:
>
> For those of us who've been swapping to zvols for some time, can
> you describe the failure modes?
>
I can swap fine.
I can't dump.
LU gets confused about them and I have to re add it.
It is slower than swapping directly to a slice.
I've never needed to snapshot my swap
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:45 -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
>>
>> For those of us who've been swapping to zvols for some time, can
>> you describe the failure modes?
>>
>
> I asked about this during the zfs boot inception review -- the high
> level answ
I really don't want to bring this up but ...
Why do we still tell people to use swap volumes? Would we have the same
sort of issue with the dump device so we need to fix it anyway?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.ope
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 10:45 -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote:
>
> For those of us who've been swapping to zvols for some time, can
> you describe the failure modes?
>
I asked about this during the zfs boot inception review -- the high
level answer is occasional deadlock in low-memory situations (zfs
>>>
>> Treat a pseudo-zvol like you would a slice.
>
>
> So these new zvol-like things don't support snapshots, etc, right?
> I take it they work by allowing overwriting of the data, correct?
yes, and yes
>
> Are these a zslice?
I suppose we could call them that. That's better than pseudo-zvol
Lori Alt wrote:
> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>> As part of the ARC inception review for ZFS crypto we were asked to
>> follow up on PSARC/2006/370 which indicates that swap & dump will be
>> done using a means other than a ZVOL.
>>
>> Currently I have the ZFS crypto project allowing for ephemeral key
Thanks for the info. As for name suggestions here are a few:
RAW
RVOL
RZVOL
--
Darren J Moffat
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> As part of the ARC inception review for ZFS crypto we were asked to
> follow up on PSARC/2006/370 which indicates that swap & dump will be
> done using a means other than a ZVOL.
>
> Currently I have the ZFS crypto project allowing for ephemeral keys to
> support using a
As part of the ARC inception review for ZFS crypto we were asked to
follow up on PSARC/2006/370 which indicates that swap & dump will be
done using a means other than a ZVOL.
Currently I have the ZFS crypto project allowing for ephemeral keys to
support using a ZVOL as a swap device.
Since it
14 matches
Mail list logo
