On 25.07.09 00:30, Rob Logan wrote:
> The post I read said OpenSolaris guest crashed, and the guy clicked
> the ``power off guest'' button on the virtual machine.
I seem to recall "guest hung". 99% of solaris hangs (without
a crash dump) are "hardware" in nature. (my experience backed by
an up
On 31.07.09 22:04, Kurt Olsen wrote:
On Jul 24, 2009, at 22:17, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Most of the issues that I've read on this list would
have been
"solved" if there was a mechanism where the user /
sysadmin could tell
ZFS to simply go back until it found a TXG that
worked.
The trade
> On Jul 24, 2009, at 22:17, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
>
> Most of the issues that I've read on this list would
> have been
> "solved" if there was a mechanism where the user /
> sysadmin could tell
> ZFS to simply go back until it found a TXG that
> worked.
>
> The trade off is that any tra
dick hoogendijk nagual.nl> writes:
>
> Than why is it that most AMD MoBo's in the shops clearly state that ECC
> Ram is not supported on the MoBo?
To restate what Erik explained: *all* AMD CPUs support ECC RAM, however poorly
written motherboard specs often make the mistake of confusing "non-EC
Erik Trimble wrote:
I _believe_ all socket AM2, AM2+ and AM3 consumer chips (Phenom,
Phenom II, Athlon X2, Athlon X3 and Athlon X4) also support unbuffered
non-registered ECC. The AMD Specs page for the above processors
indicates I'm right about those CPUs.
Quick correction: the current
dick hoogendijk wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 21:58:48 + (UTC)
Marc Bevand wrote:
dick hoogendijk nagual.nl> writes:
I live in Holland and it is not easy to find motherboards that (a)
truly support ECC ram and (b) are (Open)Solaris compatible.
Virtually all motherboards for
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 21:58:48 + (UTC)
Marc Bevand wrote:
> dick hoogendijk nagual.nl> writes:
> >
> > I live in Holland and it is not easy to find motherboards that (a)
> > truly support ECC ram and (b) are (Open)Solaris compatible.
>
> Virtually all motherboards for AMD processors support
dick hoogendijk nagual.nl> writes:
>
> I live in Holland and it is not easy to find motherboards that (a)
> truly support ECC ram and (b) are (Open)Solaris compatible.
Virtually all motherboards for AMD processors support ECC RAM because the
memory controller is in the CPU and all AMD CPUs supp
Michael McCandless wrote:
Thanks for the numerous responses everyone! Responding to some of the
answers...:
ZFS has to trust the storage to have committed the data it
claims to have committed in the same way it has to trust the integrity
of the RAM it uses for checksummed data.
I ho
Thanks for the numerous responses everyone! Responding to some of the
answers...:
> ZFS has to trust the storage to have committed the data it
> claims to have committed in the same way it has to trust the integrity
> of the RAM it uses for checksummed data.
I hope that's not true.
Ie, I can
On 24-Jul-09, at 6:41 PM, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 07/24/09 04:35 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Regardless, it [VirtualBox] has committed a crime.
But ZFS is a journalled file system! Any hardware can lose a flush;
No, the problematic default in VirtualBox is flushes being *ignored*,
whic
On Jul 24, 2009, at 22:17, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
A journaling filesystem uses a journal (transaction log) to roll
back (replace with previous data) the unordered writes in an
incomplete transaction. In the case of ZFS, it is only necessary to
go back to the most recent checkpoint and any
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Frank Middleton wrote:
On 07/24/09 04:35 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Regardless, it [VirtualBox] has committed a crime.
But ZFS is a journalled file system! Any hardware can lose a flush;
From my understanding, ZFS is not a journalled file system. ZFS
relies on ordere
On Jul 24, 2009, at 16:00, Miles Nordin wrote:
Is there a correct way to configure it, or will always any
componoent of the overall system other than ZFS get blamed when ZFS
loses a pool?
By default VB does not respect the 'disk sync' command that a guest OS
could send--it's just ignored.
Frank Middleton wrote:
On 07/24/09 04:35 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Regardless, it [VirtualBox] has committed a crime.
But ZFS is a journalled file system!
Even a journalled file system has to trust the journal. If the storage
says the journal is committed and its isn't, all bets are off.
On 07/24/09 04:35 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Regardless, it [VirtualBox] has committed a crime.
But ZFS is a journalled file system! Any hardware can lose a flush;
it's just more likely in a VM, especially when anything Microsoft
is involved, and the whole point of journalling is to prevent th
Rob Logan wrote:
> The post I read said OpenSolaris guest crashed, and the guy clicked
> the ``power off guest'' button on the virtual machine.
I seem to recall "guest hung". 99% of solaris hangs (without
a crash dump) are "hardware" in nature. (my experience backed by
an uptime of 1116days) so
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Bob
Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Miles Nordin wrote:
>>
>> The post I read said OpenSolaris guest crashed, and the guy clicked
>> the ``power off guest'' button on the virtual machine. The host never
>> crashed. so whether the IDE cache flush paramete
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Miles Nordin wrote:
The post I read said OpenSolaris guest crashed, and the guy clicked
the ``power off guest'' button on the virtual machine. The host never
crashed. so whether the IDE cache flush parameter was set or not,
Clicking ``power off guest'' is the same as walk
> The post I read said OpenSolaris guest crashed, and the guy clicked
> the ``power off guest'' button on the virtual machine.
I seem to recall "guest hung". 99% of solaris hangs (without
a crash dump) are "hardware" in nature. (my experience backed by
an uptime of 1116days) so the finger is stil
> "re" == Richard Elling writes:
re> The root cause of this thread's woes have absolutely nothing
re> to do with ECC RAM. It has everything to do with VirtualBox
re> configuration.
What part of VirtualBox configuration?
The post I read said OpenSolaris guest crashed, and the guy
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 05:01:15PM +0200, dick hoogendijk wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:44:36 -0400
> Kyle McDonald wrote:
> > ... then it seems like a shame (or a waste?) not to equally
> > protect the data both before it's given to ZFS for writing, and after
> > ZFS reads it back and returns
dick hoogendijk wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:44:36 -0400
Kyle McDonald wrote:
... then it seems like a shame (or a waste?) not to equally
protect the data both before it's given to ZFS for writing, and after
ZFS reads it back and returns it to you.
But that was not the question.
Th
On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:18 AM, Michael McCandless wrote:
I've read in numerous threads that it's important to use ECC RAM in a
ZFS file server.
It is important to use ECC RAM. The embedded market and
server market demand ECC RAM. It is only the el-cheapo PC
market that does not. Going back to s
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:44:36 -0400
Kyle McDonald wrote:
> ... then it seems like a shame (or a waste?) not to equally
> protect the data both before it's given to ZFS for writing, and after
> ZFS reads it back and returns it to you.
But that was not the question.
The question was: [quote] "My q
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
Rich Teer wrote:
> Given that data integrity is presumably important in every non-gaming
> computing use, I don't understand why people even consider not using
> ECC RAM all the time. The hardware cost delta is a red herring:
I live in Holland and it is
Michael McCandless wrote:
I've read in numerous threads that it's important to use ECC RAM in a
ZFS file server.
My question is: is there any technical reason, in ZFS's design, that
makes it particularly important for ZFS to require ECC RAM?
I think, basically the idea is, that if you're goin
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, Michael McCandless wrote:
> I've read in numerous threads that it's important to use ECC RAM in a
> ZFS file server.
>
> My question is: is there any technical reason, in ZFS's design, that
> makes it particularly important for ZFS to require ECC RAM?
[...]
> Some of the po
I've read in numerous threads that it's important to use ECC RAM in a
ZFS file server.
My question is: is there any technical reason, in ZFS's design, that
makes it particularly important for ZFS to require ECC RAM?
Is ZFS especially vulnerable, moreso than other filesystems, to bit
errors in RAM
29 matches
Mail list logo
