Richard Elling wrote:
One of the benefits of ZFS is that not only is head synchronization not
needed, but also block offsets do not have to be the same. For example,
in a traditional mirror, block 1 on device 1 is paired with block 1 on
device 2. In ZFS, this 1:1 mapping is not required. I be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the benefits of ZFS is that not only is head synchronization not
needed, but also block offsets do not have to be the same. For example,
in a traditional mirror, block 1 on device 1 is paired with block 1 on
device 2. In ZFS, this 1:1 mapping is not required. I
> > I think he means that if a block fails to write on a VDEV, ZFS can write
> > that data elsewhere and is not forced to use that location. As opposed
> > to SVM as an example, where the mirror must try to write at a particular
> > offset or fail.
>
> Understood, I am asking if the current code
> > > One of the benefits of ZFS is that not only is head synchronization
not
> > > needed, but also block offsets do not have to be the same. For
example,
> > > in a traditional mirror, block 1 on device 1 is paired with block 1
on
> > > device 2. In ZFS, this 1:1 mapping is not required. I
> > One of the benefits of ZFS is that not only is head synchronization not
> > needed, but also block offsets do not have to be the same. For example,
> > in a traditional mirror, block 1 on device 1 is paired with block 1 on
> > device 2. In ZFS, this 1:1 mapping is not required. I believe thi
> One of the benefits of ZFS is that not only is head synchronization not
> needed, but also block offsets do not have to be the same. For example,
> in a traditional mirror, block 1 on device 1 is paired with block 1 on
> device 2. In ZFS, this 1:1 mapping is not required. I believe this w
Richard Elling wrote:
>
> One of the benefits of ZFS is that not only is head synchronization not
> needed, but also block offsets do not have to be the same. For example,
> in a traditional mirror, block 1 on device 1 is paired with block 1 on
> device 2. In ZFS, this 1:1 mapping is not require
On 30-Jan-07, at 5:48 PM, Richard Elling wrote:
...
One of the benefits of ZFS is that not only is head synchronization
not
needed, but also block offsets do not have to be the same. For
example,
in a traditional mirror, block 1 on device 1 is paired with block 1 on
device 2. In ZFS, thi
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:41:25PM +0100, Roch - PAE wrote:
I think I got the point. Mine was that if the data travels a
single time toward the storage and is corrupted along the
way then there will be no hope of recovering it since the
array was given bad data. Having t
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:41:25PM +0100, Roch - PAE wrote:
> I think I got the point. Mine was that if the data travels a
> single time toward the storage and is corrupted along the
> way then there will be no hope of recovering it since the
> array was given bad data. Having the data travel twic
Nicolas Williams writes:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:32:14PM +0100, Roch - PAE wrote:
> > > The only benefit of using a HW RAID controller with ZFS is that it
> > > reduces the I/O that the host needs to do, but the trade off is that ZFS
> > > cannot do combinatorial parity reconstruction
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:32:14PM +0100, Roch - PAE wrote:
> > The only benefit of using a HW RAID controller with ZFS is that it
> > reduces the I/O that the host needs to do, but the trade off is that ZFS
> > cannot do combinatorial parity reconstruction so that it could only
> > detect erro
Nicolas Williams writes:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 10:57:17AM +0800, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
> > On 1/25/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >...
> > >after all, what was ZFS going to do with that expensive but useless
> > >hardware RAID controller? ...
> >
> > I almost rolled ov
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 09:52:05AM -0800, Richard Elling wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >The only benefit of using a HW RAID controller with ZFS is that it
> >reduces the I/O that the host needs to do, but the trade off is that ZFS
> >cannot do combinatorial parity reconstruction so that it cou
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 10:57:17AM +0800, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
On 1/25/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
after all, what was ZFS going to do with that expensive but useless
hardware RAID controller? ...
I almost rolled over reading this.
This is exactly
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 10:57:17AM +0800, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
> On 1/25/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >...
> >after all, what was ZFS going to do with that expensive but useless
> >hardware RAID controller? ...
>
> I almost rolled over reading this.
>
> This is exactly what I we
On 1/25/07, Jason J. W. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having snapshots in the filesystem that work so well is really nice.
How are y'all quiescing the DB?
So the DBA has a cronjob that puts the DB (Oracle) into hot backup
mode, takes a snapshot of all affected filesystems (i.e. log +
data
Hi Wee,
Having snapshots in the filesystem that work so well is really nice.
How are y'all quiescing the DB?
Best Regards,
J
On 1/24/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/25/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> after all, what was ZFS going to do with that expensive
On 1/25/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
after all, what was ZFS going to do with that expensive but useless
hardware RAID controller? ...
I almost rolled over reading this.
This is exactly what I went through when we moved our database server
out from Vx** to ZFS. We had a
> >On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:15:21AM -0700, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> >>Wow. That's an incredibly cool story. Thank you for sharing it! Does
> >>the Thumper today pretty much resemble what you saw then?
> >
> >Yes, amazingly so: 4-way, 48 spindles, 4u. The real beauty of the
> >match betwee
Hello David,
Thursday, January 25, 2007, 1:47:57 AM, you wrote:
DM> On Jan 24, 2007, at 04:06, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:15:21AM -0700, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
>>> Wow. That's an incredibly cool story. Thank you for sharing it! Does
>>> the Thumper today pretty much
On Jan 24, 2007, at 04:06, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:15:21AM -0700, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Wow. That's an incredibly cool story. Thank you for sharing it! Does
the Thumper today pretty much resemble what you saw then?
Yes, amazingly so: 4-way, 48 spindles, 4u. Th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bryan Cantrill wrote:
well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi" was the
last thing on anyone's mind. I believe Fowler's intention was "one that
thumps" (or, in the unique parlance of a certain Co
>Bryan Cantrill wrote:
>>> well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
>>
>> You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi" was the
>> last thing on anyone's mind. I believe Fowler's intention was "one that
>> thumps" (or, in the unique parlance of a certain Commander-in
Bryan Cantrill wrote:
well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi" was the
last thing on anyone's mind. I believe Fowler's intention was "one that
thumps" (or, in the unique parlance of a certain Commander-in-Chief,
"one th
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
> I think it's safe to say that Fowler was thinking more along the lines
Presumably, that's John Fowler?
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA, OpenSolaris CAB member
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Sean McGrath - Sun Microsystems Ireland wrote:
> Bryan Cantrill stated:
> <
> < > well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
>
> I keep thinking of the classic AC/DC song when Fowler and thumpers are
> mentioned.. s/thunder/thumper/
Yeah, AC/DC songs seem to be m
> You can take your pick of things that thump here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumper
I think it's safe to say that Fowler was thinking more along the lines
of whomever dubbed the M79 grenade launcher -- which you can safely bet
was not named after a fictional bunny...
- Bryan
On Jan 24, 2007, at 12:41, Bryan Cantrill wrote:
well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi"
was the
last thing on anyone's mind. I believe Fowler's intention was "one
that
thumps" (or, in the unique parlance of a
Bryan Cantrill stated:
<
< > well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
I keep thinking of the classic AC/DC song when Fowler and thumpers are
mentioned.. s/thunder/thumper/
<
< You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi" was the
< last thing on anyone's mind.
> well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
You'd have to ask Fowler, but certainly when he coined it, "Bambi" was the
last thing on anyone's mind. I believe Fowler's intention was "one that
thumps" (or, in the unique parlance of a certain Commander-in-Chief,
"one that gives a thumpin'").
Chris,
well, "Thumper" is actually a reference to Bambi
The comment about being risque was refering to "Humper" as
a codename proposed for a related server
( and e.g. leo.org confirms that is has a meaning labelled as "[vulg.]" :-)
-- Roland
Chris Ridd schrieb:
On 24/1/07 9:06, "Bryan Cant
On 24/1/07 9:06, "Bryan Cantrill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But Fowler said the name was too risque (!). Fortunately the name
> "Thumper" stuck...
I assumed it was a reference to Bambi... That's what comes from having small
children :-)
Cheers,
Chris
__
>Actually, it was meant to hold the entire electronic transcript of the
>George Bush impeachment proceedings ... we were thinking ahead.
Fortunately, larger disks became available in time.
Casper
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.or
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:15:21AM -0700, Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
> Wow. That's an incredibly cool story. Thank you for sharing it! Does
> the Thumper today pretty much resemble what you saw then?
Yes, amazingly so: 4-way, 48 spindles, 4u. The real beauty of the
match between ZFS and Thumpe
Wow. That's an incredibly cool story. Thank you for sharing it! Does
the Thumper today pretty much resemble what you saw then?
Best Regards,
Jason
On 1/23/07, Bryan Cantrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a bit off-topic...but since the Thumper is the poster child
> for ZFS I hope its no
> This is a bit off-topic...but since the Thumper is the poster child
> for ZFS I hope its not too off-topic.
>
> What are the actual origins of the Thumper? I've heard varying stories
> in word and print. It appears that the Thumper was the original server
> Bechtolsheim designed at Kealia as a
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Hi All,
This is a bit off-topic...but since the Thumper is the poster child
for ZFS I hope its not too off-topic.
What are the actual origins of the Thumper? I've heard varying stories
in word and print. It appears that the Thumper was the original server
Bechtolshei
Neal Pollack wrote:
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
So I was curious if anyone had any insights into the history/origins
of the Thumper...or just wanted to throw more rumors on the fire. ;-)
Thumper was created to hold the the entire electronic transcript of the
Bill Clinton impeachment proceed
Jason J. W. Williams wrote:
Hi All,
This is a bit off-topic...but since the Thumper is the poster child
for ZFS I hope its not too off-topic.
What are the actual origins of the Thumper? I've heard varying stories
in word and print. It appears that the Thumper was the original server
Bechtolshei
Hi All,
This is a bit off-topic...but since the Thumper is the poster child
for ZFS I hope its not too off-topic.
What are the actual origins of the Thumper? I've heard varying stories
in word and print. It appears that the Thumper was the original server
Bechtolsheim designed at Kealia as a mas
41 matches
Mail list logo
