Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

I've been looking at using consumer 2.5" drives also, I think the ones I've settled on are the hitachi 7K500 500 GB. These are 7200 rpm, I'm concerned the 5400's might be a little too low performance wise. The main reasons for hitachi were performance seems to be among the top 2 or 3 in the lapt

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

On Jul 24, 2010, at 5:37 PM, JavaWebDev wrote: > On 7/24/2010 8:12 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Russ Price >>> >>> Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD >>> q

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

On 7/24/2010 8:12 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Russ Price Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD quad-core is I know "a lot of CPU cycles" is a relative term. But I

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Russ Price > > Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD > quad-core is I know "a lot of CPU cycles" is a relative term. But I never notice CPU utilization, even unde

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

On 07/23/2010 02:39 AM, tomwaters wrote: > Re the CPU, do not go low power Atom etc, go a newish > Core2 duo...the power differential at idle is bugger all > and when you want to use the nas, ZFS will make good use > of the CPU. Good advice - ZFS can use quite a lot of CPU cycles. A low-end AMD q

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

On 7/23/2010 3:39 AM, tomwaters wrote: There is alot there to reply to...but I will try and help... Re. TLER. Do not worry about TLER when using ZFS. ZFS will handle it either way and will NOT time out and drop the drive...it may wait a long time, but it will not time out and drop the drive -

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

I've found the Seagate 7200.12 1tb drives and Hitachi 7k2000 2TB drives to be by far the best. I've read lots of horror stories about any WD drive with 4k sectorsit'sbest to stay away from them. I've also read plenty of people say that the green drives are terrible. __

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

There is alot there to reply to...but I will try and help... Re. TLER. Do not worry about TLER when using ZFS. ZFS will handle it either way and will NOT time out and drop the drive...it may wait a long time, but it will not time out and drop the drive - nor will it have an issue if you do enabl

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

Using a new email client and didn't notice that I didn't reply to the list. Since it might be helpful to others here are the missing bits. On 7/21/2010 5:07 PM, Freddie Cash wrote: We use the 500 GB versions attached to 3Ware controllers (configured as Single Disk arrays). They work quite ni

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

> I wanted to build a small back up (maybe also NAS) server using A common question that I am trying to get answered (and have a few) here: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=102368&tstart=0 Rob -- This message posted from opensolaris.org __

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 1:38 PM, JavaWebDev wrote: > 1.  WD Caviar Black > > Can they be used with in raidz or mirrors? We use the 500 GB versions attached to 3Ware controllers (configured as Single Disk arrays). They work quite nicely. > With the new models the firmwar

[zfs-discuss] Confused about consumer drives and zfs can someone help?

I wanted to build a small back up (maybe also NAS) server using OpenSolaris and ZFS using consumer drives but after reading a number of threads and blogs I'm totally confused and was hoping I could get some questions answered since many people have been using consumer drives with zfs. When Z

Re: [zfs-discuss] confused about lun alignment

On Jul 1, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Derek Olsen wrote: > doh! It turns out the host in question is actually a Solaris 10 update 6 > host. It appears that an Solaris 10 update 8 host actually sets the start > sector at 256. Yes, this is a silly bug, fixed years ago. > So to simplify the question.

Re: [zfs-discuss] confused about lun alignment

On 01/07/2010 23:58, Derek Olsen wrote: Folks. My env is Solaris 10 update 8 amd64. Does LUN alignment matter when I'm creating zpool's on disks (lun's) with EFI labels and providing zpool the entire disk? http://blogs.sun.com/dlutz/entry/partition_alignment_guidelines_for_unified -- D

Re: [zfs-discuss] confused about lun alignment

doh! It turns out the host in question is actually a Solaris 10 update 6 host. It appears that an Solaris 10 update 8 host actually sets the start sector at 256. So to simplify the question. If I'm using ZFS with EFI label and full disk do I even need to worry about lun alignment? I was a

[zfs-discuss] confused about lun alignment

Folks. My env is Solaris 10 update 8 amd64. Does LUN alignment matter when I'm creating zpool's on disks (lun's) with EFI labels and providing zpool the entire disk? I recently read some sun/oracle docs and blog posts about adjusting the starting sector for partition 0 (in format -e) to a

Re: [zfs-discuss] confused

never mindjust found more info on this...shoudl have held back from asking On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote: > did this come out? > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gman/opensolaris-whats-new-2010-05/ > > i was googling trying to find info about the next release and ran

[zfs-discuss] confused

did this come out? http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gman/opensolaris-whats-new-2010-05/ i was googling trying to find info about the next release and ran across this Does this mean it's actually about to come out before the end of the month or is this something else? _

[zfs-discuss] confused about zpool import -f and export

Hi, all, I think I'm missing a concept with import and export. I'm working on installing a Nexenta b134 system under Xen, and I have to run the installer under hvm mode, then I'm trying to get it back up under pv mode. In that process the controller names change, and that's where I'm getting

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about zfs recv -d, apparently

On Sun, February 22, 2009 23:37, Frank Cusack wrote: > On February 22, 2009 9:56:02 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet > wrote: >> >> On Sun, February 22, 2009 21:06, Frank Cusack wrote: >>> Your example worked because you are "only" replicating a filesystem >>> within the root pool. This works because

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about zfs recv -d, apparently

On February 22, 2009 9:56:02 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On Sun, February 22, 2009 21:06, Frank Cusack wrote: On February 22, 2009 8:03:38 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On Sun, February 22, 2009 18:11, Frank Cusack wrote: Did you see my other thread on this specific topic? You c

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about zfs recv -d, apparently

Dave wrote: Frank Cusack wrote: When you try to backup the '/' part of the root pool, it will get mounted on the altroot itself, which is of course already occupied. At that point, the receive will fail. So far as I can tell, mounting the received filesystem is the last step in the process.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about zfs recv -d, apparently

On Sun, February 22, 2009 21:06, Frank Cusack wrote: > On February 22, 2009 8:03:38 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet > wrote: >> >> On Sun, February 22, 2009 18:11, Frank Cusack wrote: >>> Did you see my other thread on this specific topic? You can't backup >>> the root pool using zfs send -R | zfs re

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about zfs recv -d, apparently

Frank Cusack wrote: When you try to backup the '/' part of the root pool, it will get mounted on the altroot itself, which is of course already occupied. At that point, the receive will fail. So far as I can tell, mounting the received filesystem is the last step in the process. So I guess mayb

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about zfs recv -d, apparently

On February 22, 2009 8:03:38 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On Sun, February 22, 2009 18:11, Frank Cusack wrote: Did you see my other thread on this specific topic? You can't backup the root pool using zfs send -R | zfs recv. Nope, somehow missed the import of that. I'm only trying to b

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about zfs recv -d, apparently

On Sun, February 22, 2009 18:11, Frank Cusack wrote: > On February 22, 2009 1:14:44 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet > wrote: >> (Note that I need to back up two pools, rpool and zp1, from the destkop >> on >> the the single external pool bup-ruin. I'm importing bup-ruin with >> altroot to avoid the m

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about zfs recv -d, apparently

On Sun, February 22, 2009 16:31, Blake wrote: > I'm actually working on this for an application at my org. I'll try > to post my work somewhere when done (hopefully this week). That'd be cool. I'm converting from rsync to send/receive because I upgraded to 2008.11 and started using CIFS, so I c

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about zfs recv -d, apparently

On February 22, 2009 1:14:44 PM -0600 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: (Note that I need to back up two pools, rpool and zp1, from the destkop on the the single external pool bup-ruin. I'm importing bup-ruin with altroot to avoid the mountoints of the backed-up filesystems on it conflicting with each o

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about zfs recv -d, apparently

I'm actually working on this for an application at my org. I'll try to post my work somewhere when done (hopefully this week). Are you keeping in mind the fact that the '-i' option needs a pair of snapshots (original and current) to work properly? On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:14 PM, David Dyer-Be

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about zfs recv -d, apparently

On Sun, February 22, 2009 00:15, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > First, it fails because the destination directory doesn't exist. Then it > fails because it DOES exist. I really expected one of those to work. So, > what am I confused about now? (Running 2008.11) > > # zpool import -R /backups/bup-r

[zfs-discuss] Confused about zfs recv -d, apparently

First, it fails because the destination directory doesn't exist. Then it fails because it DOES exist. I really expected one of those to work. So, what am I confused about now? (Running 2008.11) # zpool import -R /backups/bup-ruin bup-ruin # zfs send -R "z...@bup-20090222-054457utc" | zfs recei

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about prerequisites for ZFS to work

Harry Putnam wrote: There is a comment in those directions about installing a SMB PAM module: 6. Install the SMB PAM module Add the below line to the end of /etc/pam.conf: other password required pam_smb_passwd.so.1 nowarn Do you know what that is? It's part of the Solaris

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about prerequisites for ZFS to work

On 02/19/09 13:20, James C. McPherson wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:14:07 -0600 Harry Putnam wrote: Blake writes: [...] I found this entry helpful: There is a comment in those directions about installing a SMB PAM mod

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about prerequisites for ZFS to work

On 02/19/09 13:14, Harry Putnam wrote: Blake writes: [...] I found this entry helpful: There is a comment in those directions about installing a SMB PAM module: 6. Install the SMB PAM module Add the below line to t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about prerequisites for ZFS to work

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:14:07 -0600 Harry Putnam wrote: > Blake writes: > > > [...] > > > I found this entry helpful: > > > > > > There is a comment in those directions about installing a SMB PAM > module: > 6. Install th

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about prerequisites for ZFS to work

Blake writes: [...] > I found this entry helpful: > > There is a comment in those directions about installing a SMB PAM module: 6. Install the SMB PAM module Add the below line to the end of /etc/pam.conf: other pa

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about prerequisites for ZFS to work

Blake writes: > have you made sure that samba is *disabled*? > > svcs samba > > ? > First..good news ... its working. About samba: Yeah, that was one of the things I did find while googling. But apparently that package is not installed by default.. it was not installed here at any rate: root

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about prerequisites for ZFS to work

have you made sure that samba is *disabled*? svcs samba ? On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: > Blake wrote: >> >> You definitely need SUNWsmbskr - the cifs server provided with >> OpenSolaris is tied to the kernel at some low level. >> >> I found this entry helpful: >> >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about prerequisites for ZFS to work

Blake wrote: You definitely need SUNWsmbskr - the cifs server provided with OpenSolaris is tied to the kernel at some low level. I found this entry helpful: Looks like it will be immensely so.. However it appears from the c

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about prerequisites for ZFS to work

You definitely need SUNWsmbskr - the cifs server provided with OpenSolaris is tied to the kernel at some low level. I found this entry helpful: On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: > Ian Collins wrote: >> >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about prerequisites for ZFS to work

Ian Collins wrote: Harry Putnam wrote: [...] Still when I look again... its still in maintenance mode. What does "tail /var/svc/log/network-smb-server:default.log" show? The log file for a service listed as part of the long listing (svcs -l smb/server). Following these two commands:

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused about prerequisites for ZFS to work

Harry Putnam wrote: Here is where I need some kind of brief outline telling what all is needed to get that to happen. When I look at the server, Its said to be in `maintenance mode' # svcs | grep smb online 18:40:45 svc:/network/smb/client:default maintenance23:55:48 svc:/netwo

[zfs-discuss] Confused about prerequisites for ZFS to work

I'm hoping to get some general clues about what all is required to get an experiment going with zfs. I've managed to install osol-11 in a vmware on windowsXP host from a recent *.iso. I'm following along with Simon's blog showing how to set up ZFS. I'm newbie with both ZFS and Solaris but the in

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

Stuart Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:07:53PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > Personally, I'd estimate using du rather than ls. >>> They report the exact same number as far as I can tell. With the caveat >>> that Solaris ls -s returns the number of 512-by

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:07:53PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > > >>Personally, I'd estimate using du rather than ls. > >> > > > >They report the exact same number as far as I can tell. With the caveat > >that Solaris ls -s returns the number of 512-byte blocks, whereas > >GNU ls -s returns

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

Stuart Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They report the exact same number as far as I can tell. With the caveat > that Solaris ls -s returns the number of 512-byte blocks, whereas > GNU ls -s returns the number of 1024byte blocks by default. IIRC, this may be controlled by environment variab

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

Stuart Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:09:00AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > >> Stuart Anderson wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 03:51:17PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: >>> >>> UTSL. compressratio is the ratio of uncompressed bytes to compressed bytes

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 10:09:00AM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > Stuart Anderson wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 03:51:17PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > > > >>UTSL. compressratio is the ratio of uncompressed bytes to compressed > >>bytes. > >>http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/search?q=ZFS_

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

Stuart Anderson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 03:51:17PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > >> UTSL. compressratio is the ratio of uncompressed bytes to compressed bytes. >> http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/search?q=ZFS_PROP_COMPRESSRATIO&defs=&refs=&path=zfs&hist=&project=%2Fonnv >> >> IMHO, y

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

Hello Luke, Tuesday, April 15, 2008, 4:50:17 PM, you wrote: LS> You can fill up an ext3 filesystem with the following command: LS> dd if=/dev/zero of=delme.dat LS> You can't really fill up a ZFS filesystme that way. I guess you could, LS> but I've never had the patience -- when several GB wo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 03:51:17PM -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > UTSL. compressratio is the ratio of uncompressed bytes to compressed bytes. > http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/search?q=ZFS_PROP_COMPRESSRATIO&defs=&refs=&path=zfs&hist=&project=%2Fonnv > > IMHO, you will (almost) never get the sa

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

UTSL. compressratio is the ratio of uncompressed bytes to compressed bytes. http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/search?q=ZFS_PROP_COMPRESSRATIO&defs=&refs=&path=zfs&hist=&project=%2Fonnv IMHO, you will (almost) never get the same number looking at bytes as you get from counting blocks. -- richard

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 01:37:43PM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote: > > >>>zfs list /export/compress > >>> > >>> > >>NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > >>export-cit/compress 90.4M 1.17T 90.4M /export/compress > >> > >>is 2GB/90.4M = 2048 / 90.4 = 22.65 > >> > >> > >>That

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

>>> zfs list /export/compress >>> >>> >> NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT >> export-cit/compress 90.4M 1.17T 90.4M /export/compress >> >> is 2GB/90.4M = 2048 / 90.4 = 22.65 >> >> >> That still leaves me puzzled what the precise definition of compressratio is? >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Luke Scharf wrote: > > AFAIK, ext3 supports sparse files just like it should -- but it doesn't > dynamically figure out what to write based on the contents of the file. Since zfs inspects all data anyway in order to compute the block checksum, it can easily know if a block is

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

? > > > -Original Message- > From: Stuart Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:45:03 > To:Luke Scharf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc:zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio > > > On Mon

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

ct: Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:22:03PM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote: > Stuart Anderson wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:59:48AM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote: > > > >>Stuart Anderson wrote: > >> > >>>As an artific

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:22:03PM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote: > Stuart Anderson wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:59:48AM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote: > > > >>Stuart Anderson wrote: > >> > >>>As an artificial test, I created a filesystem with compression enabled > >>>and ran "mkfile 1g" and th

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

Stuart Anderson wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:59:48AM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote: > >> Stuart Anderson wrote: >> >>> As an artificial test, I created a filesystem with compression enabled >>> and ran "mkfile 1g" and the reported compressratio for that filesystem >>> is 1.00x even though

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:59:48AM -0400, Luke Scharf wrote: > Stuart Anderson wrote: > >As an artificial test, I created a filesystem with compression enabled > >and ran "mkfile 1g" and the reported compressratio for that filesystem > >is 1.00x even though this 1GB file only uses only 1kB. > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

Stuart Anderson wrote: > As an artificial test, I created a filesystem with compression enabled > and ran "mkfile 1g" and the reported compressratio for that filesystem > is 1.00x even though this 1GB file only uses only 1kB. > ZFS seems to treat files filled with zeroes as sparse files, regard

[zfs-discuss] Confused by compressratio

I am confused by the numerical value of compressratio. I copied a compressed ZFS filesystem that is 38.5G in size (zfs list USED and REFER value) and reports a compressratio value of "2.52x" to an uncompressed ZFS filesystem and it expanded to 198G. So why is the compressratio 2.52 rather than 198/