more below…
On Dec 1, 2011, at 8:21 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
> On 12/1/2011 6:44 PM, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
>> Thanks for your answers!
>>
>> On 2 dec 2011, at 02:54, Erik Trimble wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/1/2011 4:59 PM, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
I am sorry if these are dumb questions. If there are
On 12/1/2011 6:44 PM, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
Thanks for your answers!
On 2 dec 2011, at 02:54, Erik Trimble wrote:
On 12/1/2011 4:59 PM, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
I am sorry if these are dumb questions. If there are explanations
available somewhere for those questions that I just haven't found,
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 01:59:37AM +0100, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
>
> I am sorry if these are dumb questions. If there are explanations
> available somewhere for those questions that I just haven't found, please
> let me know! :-)
I'll give you a brief summary.
> 1. It has been said that when the
Thanks for your answers!
On 2 dec 2011, at 02:54, Erik Trimble wrote:
> On 12/1/2011 4:59 PM, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
>> I am sorry if these are dumb questions. If there are explanations
>> available somewhere for those questions that I just haven't found, please
>> let me know! :-)
>>
>> 1. It
On 12/1/2011 4:59 PM, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
I am sorry if these are dumb questions. If there are explanations
available somewhere for those questions that I just haven't found, please
let me know! :-)
1. It has been said that when the DDT entries, some 376 bytes or so, are
rolled out on L2ARC,
I am sorry if these are dumb questions. If there are explanations
available somewhere for those questions that I just haven't found, please
let me know! :-)
1. It has been said that when the DDT entries, some 376 bytes or so, are
rolled out on L2ARC, there still is some 170 bytes in the ARC to re
On May 26, 2010, at 4:12 AM, Attila Mravik wrote:
> If your ZIL does use nonvolatile cache and does not honor flush
> requests then a powerloss is the same as loosing the ZIL altogether
> since it will not have the data saved for a playback.
This is not a correct statement. Those are two differe
>>
>> Since this is a SSD you're talking about, unless you have enabled
>> nonvolatile write cache on that disk (which you should never do), and the
>> disk incorrectly handles cache flush commands (which it should never do),
>> then the supercap is irrelevant. All ZIL writes are to be done
>> syn
> From: Thomas Burgess [mailto:wonsl...@gmail.com]
>
> I might be somewhat confused to how the ZIL
> works but i thought the point of the ZIL was to "pretend" a write
> actually happened when it may not have actually been flushed to disk
> yet...
No. How the ZIL works is like this:
Whenever a p
On Tue, 25 May 2010, Thomas Burgess wrote:
The Apollo reentry vehicle was able to reach amazing speeds, but only for a
single use.
What exactly do you mean?
What I mean is what I said. A set of specifications which are all
written as "maximums" (i.e. peak) is pretty useless. Perhaps if y
Also, let me note, it came with a 3 year warranty so I expect it to last at
least 3 years...but if it doesn't, i'll just return it under the warranty.
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
> bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us>
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Bob Friesenhahn <
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>
>>
>> It's a sandforce sf-1500 model but without a supercapheres some info
>> on it:
>>
>> Maximum Performance
>>
>> * Max Read: up to 270MB/s
>> * Max Wr
>
>
> At least to me, this was not clearly "not asking about losing zil" and was
> not clearly "asking about power loss." Sorry for answering the question
> you
> thought you didn't ask.
>
I was only responding to your response of WRONG!!! The guy wasn't wrong in
regards to my questions. I'm s
On Mon, 24 May 2010, Thomas Burgess wrote:
It's a sandforce sf-1500 model but without a supercapheres some info on it:
Maximum Performance
* Max Read: up to 270MB/s
* Max Write: up to 250MB/s
* Sustained Write: up to 235MB/s
* Random Write 4k: 15,000 IOPS
* Max 4k IOPS: 50,000
> From: Thomas Burgess [mailto:wonsl...@gmail.com]
> > Just dataloss.
> WRONG!
>
> I didn't ask about losing my zil.
>
> I asked about power loss taking out my pool.
As I recall:
> I recently got a new SSD (ocz vertex LE 50gb)
>
> It seems to work really well as a ZIL performance wise. My que
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
> > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Williams
> >
> > > I recently got a new SSD (ocz vertex LE 50gb)
> > >
> > > It seems to work really well as a ZIL perform
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Williams
>
> > I recently got a new SSD (ocz vertex LE 50gb)
> >
> > It seems to work really well as a ZIL performance wise.
> > I know it doesn't have a supercap so lets' say datalos
>
>
> Not familiar with that model
>
>
It's a sandforce sf-1500 model but without a supercapheres some info on
it:
Maximum Performance
- Max Read: up to 270MB/s
- Max Write: up to 250MB/s
- Sustained Write: up to 235MB/s
- Random Write 4k: 15,000 IOPS
- Max 4k IOPS: 50,00
>
>
> ZFS is always consistent on-disk, by design. Loss of the ZIL will result
> in loss of the data in the ZIL which hasn't been flushed out to the hard
> drives, but otherwise, the data on the hard drives is consistent and
> uncorrupted.
>
>
>
> This is what i thought. I have read this list on
On 5/24/2010 2:48 PM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
I recently got a new SSD (ocz vertex LE 50gb)
Not familiar with that model
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
On 5/24/2010 2:48 PM, 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 is it pool loss?
ZFS is
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
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 is it pool loss?
also, does the fact that i have a UPS matter?
the nu
Something caused my original message to get cut off. Here is the full post:
1) Turning on write caching is potentially dangerous because the disk will
indicate that data has been written (to cache) before it has actually been
written to non-volatile storage (disk). Since the factory has no way o
1) Turning on write caching is potentially dangerous because the disk will
indicate that data has been written (to cache) before it has actually been
written to non-volatile storage (disk). Since the factory has no way of knowing
how you'll use your T5140, I'm guessing that they set the disk wri
Hello experts,
I would like consult you some questions regarding RFE 6334757
and CR 6322205 (disk write cache).
==
RFE 6334757
disk write cache should be enabled and should have a tool to
switch it on and off
CR 6322205
Enable disk write cache if ZFS owns
Hello All,
I have a ZFS root system with /export and /export/home ZFS file systems
from the root pool.When I have additional non-ZFS mounts added to
the /etc/vfstab for /export/install or /export/install-Sol10. Upon
boot I get an error from the SMF service
svc:/system/filesystem/local:defaul
Ian Collins wrote:
> satya wrote:
> > Any idea if we can use pax command to backup ZFS acls? will -p option of
> > pax utility do the trick?
> >
> >
> pax should, according to
> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gbchx?a=view
>
> tar and cpio do.
>
> It should be simple enough to tes
satya wrote:
> Any update on star ability to backup ZFS ACLs? Any idea if we can use pax
> command to backup ZFS acls? will -p option of pax utility do the trick?
I am looking for people who like to discuss the archive format for ZFS ACLs and
for extended attribute files for star.
Please choo
Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>> satya wrote:
>>> Any idea if we can use pax command to backup ZFS acls? will -p
>>> option of pax utility do the trick?
>> pax should, according to
>> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gbchx?a=view
>>
>
> pax isn't ACL aware. It does handle ex
Ian Collins wrote:
> satya wrote:
>> Any idea if we can use pax command to backup ZFS acls? will -p option of
>> pax utility do the trick?
>>
>>
> pax should, according to
> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gbchx?a=view
>
pax isn't ACL aware. It does handle extended attributes, th
satya wrote:
> Any idea if we can use pax command to backup ZFS acls? will -p option of pax
> utility do the trick?
>
>
pax should, according to
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/819-5461/gbchx?a=view
tar and cpio do.
It should be simple enough to test, just generate an archive and have a
lo
Any update on star ability to backup ZFS ACLs? Any idea if we can use pax
command to backup ZFS acls? will -p option of pax utility do the trick?
-satya
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.o
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 04:10:10PM -0500, JZ wrote:
> Hello Darren,
> This one, ok, was a validate thought/question --
Darn, I was hoping...
> On Solaris, root pools cannot have EFI labels (the boot firmware doesn't
> support booting from them).
> http://blog.yucas.info/2008/11/26/zfs-boot-sola
Hi Cindy,
I now suspect that the boot blocks are located outside of the space in
partition 0 that actually belongs to the zpool, in which case it is not
necessarily a bug that zpool attach does not write those blocks, IMO. Indeed,
that must be the case, since GRUB needs to get to stage2 in orde
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 01:24:17PM -0800, Alex Viskovatoff wrote:
> a...@diotiima:~# installgrub -m /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2
> /dev/rdsk/c4t0d0s0
> Updating master boot sector destroys existing boot managers (if any).
> continue (y/n)?y
> stage1 written to partition 0 sector 0 (abs 160
Thanks for clearing that up. That all makes sense.
I was wondering why ZFS doesn't use the whole disk in the standard OpenSolaris
install. That explains it.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolari
Hi Alex,
The fact that you have to install the boot blocks manually on the
second disk that you added with zpool attach is a bug! I should have
mentioned this bug previously.
If you had used the initial installation method to create a mirrored
root pool, the boot blocks would have been applied au
Cindy,
Well, it worked. The system can boot off c4t0d0s0 now.
But I am still a bit perplexed. Here is how the invocation of installgrub went:
a...@diotiima:~# installgrub -m /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2
/dev/rdsk/c4t0d0s0
Updating master boot sector destroys existing boot managers (if an
/6884
;-)
best,
z
- Original Message -
From: "A Darren Dunham"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Questions about OS 2008.11 partitioning scheme
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 11:49:27AM -0700, cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote:
>> My wish
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 11:49:27AM -0700, cindy.swearin...@sun.com wrote:
> My wish for this year is to boot from EFI-labeled disks so examining
> disk labels is mostly unnecessary because ZFS pool components could be
> constructed as whole disks, and the unpleasant disk
> format/label/partitioning
> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-5093/disksconcepts-20068?a=view
>
> (To add more confusion, partitions are also referred to as slices.)
Nope, at least not on x86 systems. A partition holds the Solaris part
of the disk, and that part is subdivided into slices. Partitions
are visible to oth
On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:22:20AM -0800, Alex Viskovatoff wrote:
> I did an install of OpenSolaris in which I specified that the whole disk
> should be used for the installation. Here is what "format> verify" produces
> for that disk:
>
> Part TagFlag Cylinders Size
Alex,
I think the root cause of your confusion is that the format utility and
disk labels are very unfriendly and confusing.
Partition 2 identifies the whole disk and on x86 systems, space is
needed for boot-related information and is currently stored in
partition 8. Neither of these partitions r
Hi all,
I did an install of OpenSolaris in which I specified that the whole disk should
be used for the installation. Here is what "format> verify" produces for that
disk:
Part TagFlag Cylinders SizeBlocks
0 rootwm 1 - 60797 465.73GB(6
All,
my apologies in advance for the wide distribution - it
was recommended that I contact these aliases but if
there is a more appropriate one, please let me know...
I have received the following EFI disk-related
questions from the EMC PowerPath team who
would like to provide more complete
On 11/03/08 13:18, Philip Brown wrote:
Ok, I think I understand. You're going to be told
that ZFS send isn't a backup (and for these purposes
I definately agree), ...
Hmph. well, even for 'replication' type purposes, what I'm talking about is
quite useful.
Picture two remote systems, wh
> Ok, I think I understand. You're going to be told
> that ZFS send isn't a backup (and for these purposes
> I definately agree), ...
Hmph. well, even for 'replication' type purposes, what I'm talking about is
quite useful.
Picture two remote systems, which happen to have "mostly identical" dat
Ok, I think I understand. You're going to be told that ZFS send isn't a backup
(and for these purposes I definately agree), but if we ignore that this sounds
like you're talking about restoring a snapshot from an external media, and then
running a clone off that.
Clone's are already supported,
> If
> I'm interpreting correctly, you're talking about a
> couple of features, neither of which is in ZFS yet,
...
> 1. The ability to restore individual files from a
> snapshot, in the same way an entire snapshot is
> restored - simply using the blocks that are already
> stored.
>
> 2. The a
>> If the file still existed, would this be a case of redirecting the
>> file's top level block (dnode?) to the one from the snapshot? If the
>> file had been deleted, could you just copy that one block?
>>
>> Is it that simple, or is there a level of interaction between files
>> and snapshots tha
Ross Smith wrote:
>> Snapshots are not replacements for traditional backup/restore features.
>> If you need the latter, use what is currently available on the market.
>> -- richard
>>
>
> I'd actually say snapshots do a better job in some circumstances.
> Certainly they're being used that way
> Snapshots are not replacements for traditional backup/restore features.
> If you need the latter, use what is currently available on the market.
> -- richard
I'd actually say snapshots do a better job in some circumstances.
Certainly they're being used that way by the desktop team:
http://blogs.
Ross Smith wrote:
> Hi Darren,
>
> That's storing a dump of a snapshot on external media, but files
> within it are not directly accessible. The work Tim et all are doing
> is actually putting a live ZFS filesystem on external media and
> sending snapshots to it.
>
Cognitive disconnect, again.
Hi Darren,
That's storing a dump of a snapshot on external media, but files
within it are not directly accessible. The work Tim et all are doing
is actually putting a live ZFS filesystem on external media and
sending snapshots to it.
A live ZFS filesystem is far more useful (and reliable) than a
Ross wrote:
> Ok, I see where you're coming from now, but what you're talking about isn't
> zfs send / receive. If I'm interpreting correctly, you're talking about a
> couple of features, neither of which is in ZFS yet, and I'd need the input of
> more technical people to know if they are possi
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Carson Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>> Also I'm surprised Jorg Schilly hasn't chimed yet suggesting star. :)
>>>
>> We need _some_ backup format that will preserve ZFS ACLs. star doesn't
>> (yet), nor does any other version of tar that I know of. Sun's
Carson Gaspar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also I'm surprised Jorg Schilly hasn't chimed yet suggesting star. :)
>
> We need _some_ backup format that will preserve ZFS ACLs. star doesn't
> (yet), nor does any other version of tar that I know of. Sun's cpio
> didn't use to (I haven't tested it
Carson Gaspar wrote:
> On 11/1/2008 4:06 PM, Carson Gaspar wrote:
> ...
>
>> (yet), nor does any other version of tar that I know of. Sun's cpio
>> didn't use to (I haven't tested it recently, anyone know for sure?), and
>> if it does now, it's still cpio *shudder*. Even rsync doesn't support
>>
On 11/1/2008 4:06 PM, Carson Gaspar wrote:
...
> (yet), nor does any other version of tar that I know of. Sun's cpio
> didn't use to (I haven't tested it recently, anyone know for sure?), and
> if it does now, it's still cpio *shudder*. Even rsync doesn't support
...
> have ACL frameworks. And if S
On 11/1/2008 11:28 AM, David Magda wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 13:13, Richard Elling wrote:
>
>> Paul Kraus wrote:
>>> Is there a ufsdump equivalent for ZFS ? For home use I really don't
>>> want to have to buy a NetBackup license.
>> No, and it is unlikely to happen. To some degree, ufsdump exis
Is there anything better than star? That was what I planned to use. Simple,
cheap, and compatible with just about anything :)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.
On Oct 31, 2008, at 13:13, Richard Elling wrote:
> Paul Kraus wrote:
>>
>> Is there a ufsdump equivalent for ZFS ? For home use I really don't
>> want to have to buy a NetBackup license.
>
> No, and it is unlikely to happen. To some degree, ufsdump existed
> because of deficiencies in other copy
Ok, I see where you're coming from now, but what you're talking about isn't zfs
send / receive. If I'm interpreting correctly, you're talking about a couple
of features, neither of which is in ZFS yet, and I'd need the input of more
technical people to know if they are possible.
1. The abilit
> Ah, there is a cognitive disconnect... more below.
>
> The cognitive disconnect is that snapshots are
> blocks, not files.
> Therefore, the snapshot may contain only changed
> portions of
> files and blocks from a single file may be spread
> across many
> different snapshots.
I was referring
Ah, there is a cognitive disconnect... more below.
Philip Brown wrote:
>> relling wrote:
>> This question makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can
>> rephrase?
>>
>>
>
> To take a really obnoxious case:
> lets say I have a 1 gigabyte filesystem. It has 1.5 gigabytes of physical
> disk allocate
> So, when I do a zfs receive, it would be "really
> nice", if there were some way for zfs to figure out,
> lets say, "recieve to a snapshot of the filesystem;
> then take advantage of the fact that it is a
> snapshot, to NOT write on disk, the 9 unaltered files
> that are in the snapshot; just all
> relling wrote:
> This question makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can
> rephrase?
>
To take a really obnoxious case:
lets say I have a 1 gigabyte filesystem. It has 1.5 gigabytes of physical disk
allocated to it (so it is 66% full).
It has 10x100meg files in it.
"Something bad happens", and I
Paul Kraus wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Philip Brown wrote:
>>
>>> I've recently started down the road of production use for zfs, and am
>>> hitting my head on some paradigm shifts. I'd like to clarify whether my
>>> understandi
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philip Brown wrote:
>> I've recently started down the road of production use for zfs, and am
>> hitting my head on some paradigm shifts. I'd like to clarify whether my
>> understanding is correct, and/or whether there a
> > 2.2 do a receive of an earlier zfs send, to
> either a snapshot or a "child" filesystem, and be
> efficient about disk space used. ie: have the recieve
> understand, "hey, I have that file already,
> completely intact, so I'm not going to waste space by
> storing it again".
> >
ZFS alread
Philip Brown wrote:
> I've recently started down the road of production use for zfs, and am hitting
> my head on some paradigm shifts. I'd like to clarify whether my understanding
> is correct, and/or whether there are better ways of doing things.
> I have one question for replication, and one qu
I've recently started down the road of production use for zfs, and am hitting
my head on some paradigm shifts. I'd like to clarify whether my understanding
is correct, and/or whether there are better ways of doing things.
I have one question for replication, and one question for backups.
These qu
Actually, you can replace them all at once, as long as you don't unplug
the old ones first. Let's say you have a raidz2 setup like this:
mypool
raidz2
a
b
c
d
and you say this:
# zpool replace mypool a A
# zpool replace myp
Jeff Bonwick wrote:
> One suggestion: replace as many disks as you intend to at the same time,
> so that ZFS only has to do one resilver operation. It's faster that way.
>
> Jeff
>
Just to be more clear on this:
Assuming you have data you care about on the current raidz2 zpool, you
should re
> No, until you've replaced all disks, it will still be 500G*N.
ah, thank you very much!
-v
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
ZFS will allow the replacement. The available size is, however,
be determined by the smallest of the lot. Once you've replaced
*all* 500GB disks with 1TB disks, the available space will double.
One suggestion: replace as many disks as you intend to at the same time,
so that ZFS only has to do on
On 11 October, 2008 - Vizzini Sampere sent me these 1,4K bytes:
> I'd like to replace/upgrade two 500GB disks in RaidZ2 vdev with 1TB
> disks, but I have some preliminary questions/concerns before trying
> 'zfs replace dpool ???'
>
> Will ZFS permit this replacement?
Yes.
> Will ZFS use the ext
I'd like to replace/upgrade two 500GB disks in RaidZ2 vdev with 1TB disks, but
I have some preliminary questions/concerns before trying 'zfs replace dpool …'
Will ZFS permit this replacement?
Will ZFS use the extra space in a heterogeneous RaidZ2 vdev, or is the size
limited by the smallest dis
Just checking, are you planning to have the receiving ZFS system read only?
I'm not sure how ZFS receive works on a system if changes have been made, but I
would expect they would be overwritten.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-dis
>It depends: if you like to be able to restore single files, zfs send/recv
would
>not be apropriate.
Why not?
With zfs you can easily view any file/dir from a snapshot (via the .zfs
dir). You can also copy that instance of the file into your running fs with
cp.
justin
smime.p7s
Description: S
eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Best Backup Script That Doesn't Do Backups, but I can't find it. In
> > essence, it just created a list of what changed since the last
> > backup and allowed you to use tar/cpio/cp - whatever to do the backup.
>
> I think zfs send/recv would be a gre
"Chris Cosby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If they are truly limited, something like an rsync or similar. There was a
> script being thrown around a while back that was touted as the Best Backup
> Script That Doesn't Do Backups, but I can't find it. In essence, it just
> created a list of what cha
Obviously, I should stop answering, as all I deal with and all that I will
deal with is GA Solaris. OpenSolaris might as well not exist as far as I'm
concerned. With that in mind, I'll just keep reading and appreciating all of
the good zfs info that comes along.
Peace out.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at
On Jul 29, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Chris Cosby wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Stefano Pini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> we are proposing a customer a couple of X4500 (24 Tb) used as NAS
> (i.e. NFS server).
> Both server will contain the same files and should be acces
Stefano Pini wrote:
> Hi guys,
> we are proposing a customer a couple of X4500 (24 Tb) used as NAS
> (i.e. NFS server).
> Both server will contain the same files and should be accessed by
> different clients at the same time (i.e. they should be both active)
What exactly are they trying to do
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Stefano Pini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> we are proposing a customer a couple of X4500 (24 Tb) used as NAS (i.e.
> NFS server).
> Both server will contain the same files and should be accessed by different
> clients at the same time (i.e. they should
Hi guys,
we are proposing a customer a couple of X4500 (24 Tb) used as NAS
(i.e. NFS server).
Both server will contain the same files and should be accessed by
different clients at the same time (i.e. they should be both active)
So we need to guarantee that both x4500 contain the same files:
Mickae?l ABISROR wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> here are some questions about ZFS
>>>
>>> When accessing to RAW volumes under ZFS do we go through cache or
>>> not? If yes can we disable it?
>>>
I believe Zvols are uncached.
>>> They use Veritas QuickIO (ODM) and they want to compare with ZFS
>> Hi all,
>>
>> here are some questions about ZFS
>>
>> When accessing to RAW volumes under ZFS do we go through cache or
>> not? If yes can we disable it?
>> They use Veritas QuickIO (ODM) and they want to compare with ZFS and
>> also ZFS with and without cache.
>>
>> Do we have some benchmark
> Hi all,
>
> here are some questions about ZFS asked by a top customer
>
>
> When accessing to RAW volumes under ZFS do we go through cache or not?
> If yes can we disable it?
> They use Veritas QuickIO (ODM) and they want to compare with ZFS and
> also ZFS with and without cache.
>
> Do we have
Stefano Pini wrote:
> Hi guys,
> we are proposing a customer a couple of X4500 (24 Tb) used as NAS
> (i.e. NFS server).
> Both server will contain the same files and should be accessed by
> different clients at the same time (i.e. they should be both active)
> So we need to guarantee that both
Hi guys,
we are proposing a customer a couple of X4500 (24 Tb) used as NAS
(i.e. NFS server).
Both server will contain the same files and should be accessed by
different clients at the same time (i.e. they should be both active)
So we need to guarantee that both x4500 contain the same file
Hi Mario,
Mario Goebbels wrote:
>> ZFS can use block sizes up to 128k. If the data is compressed, then
>> this size will be larger when decompressed.
>>
>
> ZFS allows you to use variable blocksizes (sized a power of 2 from 512
> to 128k), and as far as I know, a compressed block is put into
> ZFS can use block sizes up to 128k. If the data is compressed, then
> this size will be larger when decompressed.
ZFS allows you to use variable blocksizes (sized a power of 2 from 512
to 128k), and as far as I know, a compressed block is put into the
smallest fitting one.
-mg
___
Hi,
ZFS can use block sizes up to 128k. If the data is compressed, then
this size will be larger when decompressed.
So, can the decompressed data be larger than 128k? If so, does this
also hold for metadata? In other words,
can I have a 128k block on the disk with, for instance, indirect block
Yeah, I'd seen that, but we're only going to be running 100 users so the boot
time shouldn't be too bad. :-)
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinf
Yes it will work, and quite nicely indeed. But you need to be careful.
Currently ZFS mounting is not "instantaneous", if you have like say 3
users, you might be for a rude surprize as system takes its own merry time (~
few hrs) mounting them at next reboot. Even with auto mounter, things won
Well, it looks like I've solved the question of whether you can auto-create the
folders. There's a nice little samba script that you can add to the share to
do it for you:
>From http://www.edplese.com/samba-with-zfs.html
Samba's root preexec share parameter can really come in handy when settin
Hey folks,
This may sound a little crazy, but I'm a long time windows admin planning on
rolling out a Solaris server to act as our main filestore, and I could do with
a bit of advice.
The main reason for switching is so we can use snapshots. With Samba and
Microsoft's Shadow Copy Client we ca
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
