On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 07:28:06AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:19 PM
> >
> > Once your data is dedup'ed, by whatever means, access to it is the
> > same. You need enough memory+l2arc to indirect references
2011/5/27 Edward Ned Harvey
:
> I don't think this is true. The reason you need arc+l2arc to store your DDT
> is because when you perform a write, the system will need to check and see
> if that block is a duplicate of an already existing block. If you dedup
> once, and later disable dedup, the s
Dan> ... It would still need a complex bp_rewrite.
Are you certain about that?
For example, scrubbing/resilvering and fixing corrupt blocks with
non-matching checksums is a post-processing operation which
works on an existing pool and rewrites some blocks if needed.
And it works without a bp_rew
> From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:19 PM
>
> Once your data is dedup'ed, by whatever means, access to it is the
> same. You need enough memory+l2arc to indirect references via
> DDT.
I don't think this is true. The reason you need arc+l2arc to s
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 04:32:03AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
> One more rationale in this idea is that with deferred dedup
> in place, the DDT may be forced to hold only non-unique
> blocks (2+ references), and would require less storage in
> RAM, disk, L2ARC, etc. - in case we agree to remake the
>
2011-05-26 19:37, Edward Ned Harvey ?:
Hey, I got another question for ZFS developers -
Given: If you enable dedup and write a bunch of data, and then
disable dedup, the formerly written data will remain dedup'd.
Given: The zdb -s command, which simulates dedup to provide dedup
statis
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:04:04AM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
> wrote:
> > Question:? Is it possible, or can it easily become possible, to periodically
> > dedup a pool instead of keeping dedup running all the time?? It is easy to
>
> I think i
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
> Question: Is it possible, or can it easily become possible, to periodically
> dedup a pool instead of keeping dedup running all the time? It is easy to
I think it's been discussed before, and the conclusion is that it
would require bp_
Hey, I got another question for ZFS developers -
Given: If you enable dedup and write a bunch of data, and then disable
dedup, the formerly written data will remain dedup'd.
Given: The zdb -s command, which simulates dedup to provide dedup
statistics without actually enabling dedup.
