> We need high availability, so are looking at Sun
> Cluster. That seems to add
> an extra layer of complexity , but there's no
> way I'll get signoff on
> a solution without redundancy. It would appear that
> ZFS failover is
> supported with the latest version of Solaris/Sun
> Cluster? I was speak
>
>
> The SE also told me that Sun Cluster requires
> hardware raid, which
> conflicts with the general recommendation to feed ZFS
> raw disk. It seems
> such a configuration would either require configuring
> zdevs directly on the
> raid LUNs, losing ZFS self-healing and checksum
> correction fe
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Peter Tribble wrote:
> This was some time ago (a very long time ago, actually). There are two
> fundamental problems:
>
> 1. Each zfs filesystem consumes kernel memory. Significant amounts, 64K
> is what we worked out at the time. For normal numbers of filesystems that's
> not
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Dale Ghent wrote:
> Not to sway you away from ZFS/NFS considerations, but I'd like to add
> that people who in the past used DFS typically went on to replace it with
> AFS. Have you considered it?
You're right, AFS is the first choice coming to mind when replacing DFS. We
act
On 9/24/07, Paul B. Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Peter Tribble wrote:
>
> > filesystem per user on the server, just to see how it would work. While
> > managing 20,00 filesystems with the automounter was trivial, the attempt
> > to manage 20,000 zfs filesystems wasn't en
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> But all quotas were set in a single flat text file. Anytime you added a new
> quota, you needed to turn off quotas, then turn them back on, and quota
> enforcement was disabled while it recalculated space utilization.
I believe in later versions of the OS 'quota resize' di
On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:15 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> Well, considering that some days we automatically create accounts for
> thousands of students, I wouldn't want to be the one stuck typing 'zfs
> create' a thousand times 8-/. And that still wouldn't resolve our
> requirement for our help desk st
Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Jonathan Loran wrote:
My gut tells me that you won't have much trouble mounting 50K file
systems with ZFS. But who knows until you try. My questions for you is
can you lab this out?
Yeah, after this research phase has been completed, we'r
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Richard Elling wrote:
> > Perhaps I should have been more clear -- a remote facility available via
> > programmatic access, not manual user direct access. If I wanted to do
>
> I'd argue that it isn't worth the trouble.
> zfs create
> zfs set
> is all that would be
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Richard Elling wrote:
> Yes. Sun currently has over 45,000 users with automounted home
> directories. I do not know how many servers are involved, though, in part
> because home directories are highly available services and thus their
> configuration is abstracted away from t
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Richard Elling wrote:
> I can't imagine a web server serving tens of thousands of pages. I think
> you should put a more scalable architecture in place, if that is your
> goal. BTW, there are many companies that do this: google, yahoo, etc.
> In no case do they have a single
On 9/24/07, Paul B. Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but checking the actual release notes shows no ZFS mention. 3.0.26 to
> 3.2.0? That seems an odd version bump...
3.0.x and before are GPLv2. 3.2.0 and later are GPLv3.
http://news.samba.org/announcements/samba_gplv3/
--
Mike Gerdts
http:/
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Jonathan Loran wrote:
> My gut tells me that you won't have much trouble mounting 50K file
> systems with ZFS. But who knows until you try. My questions for you is
> can you lab this out?
Yeah, after this research phase has been completed, we're going to have to
go into a p
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Peter Tribble wrote:
> filesystem per user on the server, just to see how it would work. While
> managing 20,00 filesystems with the automounter was trivial, the attempt
> to manage 20,000 zfs filesystems wasn't entirely successful. In fact,
> based on that experience I simply
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Ed Plese wrote:
> ZFS ACL support was going to be merged into 3.0.26 but 3.0.26 ended up
> being a security fix release and the merge got pushed back. The next
> release will be 3.2.0 and ACL support will be in there.
Arg, you're right, I based that on the mailing list posti
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Richard Elling wrote:
>
>> 50,000 directories aren't a problem, unless you also need 50,000 quotas
>> and hence 50,000 file systems. Such a large, single storage pool system
>> will be an outlier... significantly beyond what we have real world
>> exper
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, James F. Hranicky wrote:
>
>>> It just seems rather involved, and relatively inefficient to continuously
>>> be mounting/unmounting stuff all the time. One of the applications to be
>>> deployed against the filesystem will be web service, I can't really
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, James F. Hranicky wrote:
>
>> This can be solved using an automounter as well.
>
> Well, I'd say more "kludged around" than "solved" ;), but again unless
> you've used DFS it might not seem that way.
>
> It just seems rather involved, and relatively i
Paul,
My gut tells me that you won't have much trouble mounting 50K file
systems with ZFS. But who knows until you try. My questions for you is
can you lab this out? you could build a commodity server with a ZFS
pool on it. Heck it could be a small pool, one disk, and then put your
50K f
On 9/22/07, Paul B. Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, James F. Hranicky wrote:
>
> > > It just seems rather involved, and relatively inefficient to continuously
> > > be mounting/unmounting stuff all the time. One of the applications to be
> > > deployed against the filesyste
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:49:29PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> > > I was planning to provide CIFS services via Samba. I noticed a posting a
> > > while back from a Sun engineer working on integrating NFSv4/ZFS ACL
> > > support
> > > into Samba, but I'm not sure if that was ever completed and s
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Tim Spriggs wrote:
> Still, we are using ZFS but we are re-thinking on how to deploy/manage
> it. Our original model had us exporting/importing pools in order to move
> zone data between machines. We had done the same with UFS on iSCSI
[...]
> When we don't move pools around,
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Mike Gerdts wrote:
> MS-DFS could be helpful here. You could have a virtual samba instance
> that generates MS-DFS redirects to the appropriate spot. At one point in
That's true, although I rather detest Microsoft DFS (they stole the acronym
from DCE/DFS, even though partic
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Andy Lubel wrote:
> Yeah its fun to see IBM compete with its OEM provider Netapp.
Yes, we had both IBM and Netapp out as well. I'm not sure what the point
was... We do have some IBM SAN equipment on site, I suppose if we had gone
with the IBM variant we could have consolidate
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, James F. Hranicky wrote:
> > It just seems rather involved, and relatively inefficient to continuously
> > be mounting/unmounting stuff all the time. One of the applications to be
> > deployed against the filesystem will be web service, I can't really
> > envision a web server
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, eric kustarz wrote:
> > As far as quotas, I was less than impressed with their implementation.
>
> Would you mind going into more details here?
The feature set was fairly extensive, they supported volume quotas for
users or groups, or "qtree" quotas, which similar to the ZFS
eric kustarz wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2007, at 3:50 PM, Tim Spriggs wrote:
>
>> m2# zpool create test mirror iscsi_lun1 iscsi_lun2
>> m2# zpool export test
>> m1# zpool import -f test
>> m1# reboot
>> m2# reboot
>
> Since I haven't actually looked into what problem caused your pools to
> become damag
On Sep 21, 2007, at 3:50 PM, Tim Spriggs wrote:
> Paul B. Henson wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Tim Spriggs wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The x4500 is very sweet and the only thing stopping us from
>>> buying two
>>> instead of another shelf is the fact that we have lost pools on
>>> Sol10u3
>>> servers a
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Tim Spriggs wrote:
>
>
>> The x4500 is very sweet and the only thing stopping us from buying two
>> instead of another shelf is the fact that we have lost pools on Sol10u3
>> servers and there is no easy way of making two pools redundant (ie the
>> co
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Tim Spriggs wrote:
> The x4500 is very sweet and the only thing stopping us from buying two
> instead of another shelf is the fact that we have lost pools on Sol10u3
> servers and there is no easy way of making two pools redundant (ie the
> complexity of clustering.) Simply se
On 9/20/07, Paul B. Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again though, that would imply two different storage locations visible to
> the clients? I'd really rather avoid that. For example, with our current
> Samba implementation, a user can just connect to
> '\\files.csupomona.edu\' to access their
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, James F. Hranicky wrote:
>
>> This can be solved using an automounter as well.
>
> Well, I'd say more "kludged around" than "solved" ;), but again unless
> you've used DFS it might not seem that way.
Hey, I liked it :->
> It just seems rather involve
On 9/20/07 7:31 PM, "Paul B. Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Tim Spriggs wrote:
>
>> It's an IBM re-branded NetApp which can which we are using for NFS and
>> iSCSI.
Yeah its fun to see IBM compete with its OEM provider Netapp.
>
> Ah, I see.
>
> Is it comparable s
On Sep 20, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Gary Mills wrote:
>
>> You should consider a Netapp filer. It will do both NFS and CIFS,
>> supports disk quotas, and is highly reliable. We use one for 30,000
>> students and 3000 employees. Ours has never failed us.
>
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> Is it comparable storage though? Does it use SATA drives similar to the
> x4500, or more expensive/higher performance FC drives? Is it one of the
> models that allows connecting dual clustered heads and failing over the
> storage between them?
>
> I agree the x4500 is a swee
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Chris Kirby wrote:
> We're adding a style of quota that only includes the bytes referenced by
> the active fs. Also, there will be a matching style for reservations.
>
> "some point in the future" is very soon (weeks). :-)
I don't think my management will let me run Solaris
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Tim Spriggs wrote:
> It's an IBM re-branded NetApp which can which we are using for NFS and
> iSCSI.
Ah, I see.
Is it comparable storage though? Does it use SATA drives similar to the
x4500, or more expensive/higher performance FC drives? Is it one of the
models that allows
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, James F. Hranicky wrote:
>
>
>>and due to the fact that snapshots counted toward ZFS quota, I decided
>
>
> Yes, that does seem to remove a bit of their value for backup purposes. I
> think they're planning to rectify that at some point in the future
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Tim Spriggs wrote:
>
>
>> We are in a similar situation. It turns out that buying two thumpers is
>> cheaper per TB than buying more shelves for an IBM N7600. I don't know
>> about power/cooling considerations yet though.
>>
>
> It's really a com
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Gary Mills wrote:
> You should consider a Netapp filer. It will do both NFS and CIFS,
> supports disk quotas, and is highly reliable. We use one for 30,000
> students and 3000 employees. Ours has never failed us.
We had actually just finished evaluating Netapp before I sta
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Tim Spriggs wrote:
> We are in a similar situation. It turns out that buying two thumpers is
> cheaper per TB than buying more shelves for an IBM N7600. I don't know
> about power/cooling considerations yet though.
It's really a completely different class of storage though, r
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Andy Lubel wrote:
> Looks like its completely scalable but your boot time may suffer the more
> you have. Just don't reboot :)
I'm not sure if it's accurate, but the SE we were meeting with claimed that
we could failover all of the filesystems to one half of the cluster, rebo
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, James F. Hranicky wrote:
> This can be solved using an automounter as well.
Well, I'd say more "kludged around" than "solved" ;), but again unless
you've used DFS it might not seem that way.
It just seems rather involved, and relatively inefficient to continuously
be mountin
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 16:22:45 -0500, Gary Mills wrote:
: You should consider a Netapp filer. It will do both NFS and CIFS,
: supports disk quotas, and is highly reliable. We use one for 30,000
: students and 3000 employees. Ours has never failed us.
And they might only lightly sue you for c
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 12:49:29PM -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Richard Elling wrote:
>
> > 50,000 directories aren't a problem, unless you also need 50,000 quotas
> > and hence 50,000 file systems. Such a large, single storage pool system
> > will be an outlier... signific
Andy Lubel wrote:
> On 9/20/07 3:49 PM, "Paul B. Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Richard Elling wrote:
>>
>>
>> That would also be my preference, but if I were forced to use hardware
>> RAID, the additional loss of storage for ZFS redundancy would be painful.
On 9/20/07 3:49 PM, "Paul B. Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Richard Elling wrote:
>
>> 50,000 directories aren't a problem, unless you also need 50,000 quotas
>> and hence 50,000 file systems. Such a large, single storage pool system
>> will be an outlier... significan
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> One issue I have is that our previous filesystem, DFS, completely spoiled
> me with its global namespace and location transparency. We had three fairly
> large servers, with the content evenly dispersed among them, but from the
> perspective of the client any user's files w
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Richard Elling wrote:
> 50,000 directories aren't a problem, unless you also need 50,000 quotas
> and hence 50,000 file systems. Such a large, single storage pool system
> will be an outlier... significantly beyond what we have real world
> experience with.
Yes, considering
a few comments below...
Paul B. Henson wrote:
> We are looking for a replacement enterprise file system to handle storage
> needs for our campus. For the past 10 years, we have been happily using DFS
> (the distributed file system component of DCE), but unfortunately IBM
> killed off that product
We are looking for a replacement enterprise file system to handle storage
needs for our campus. For the past 10 years, we have been happily using DFS
(the distributed file system component of DCE), but unfortunately IBM
killed off that product and we have been running without support for over a
ye
51 matches
Mail list logo
