Interesting thread - a few comments:
Finite-sized validation checksums aren't a 100% solution either, but they're
certainly good enough to be extremely useful.
NetApp has built a rather decent business at least in part by providing
less-than-100% user-level undo-style facilities via snapshots (
But it is likely that in at least some situations promiscuously retaining
*everything*
even for a limited time would be a real problem, and that in a lot more it
would
be at least sub-optimal. Creating a directory attribute inheritable by
subdirectories
and files controlling temporary undelete-
> a total of 4*64k = 256k to fetch a 2k block.
> http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6437054
perhaps a quick win would be to tell vdev_cache
about the DMU_OT_* type so it can read ahead appropriately.
it seems the largest losses are metadata. (du,find,scrub/resilver)
__
Pardon me if this scenario has been discussed already, but I haven't
seen anything as yet.
I'd like to request a 'zpool evacuate pool ' command.
'zpool evacuate' would migrate the data from a disk device to other
disks in the pool.
Here's the scenario:
Say I have a small server with 6x
>Hmm, I think I'd rather see this built into programs, such as 'rm', rather
>than into the filesystem itself.
>
>For example, if I'm using ZFS for my OpenSolaris development, I might want
>to enable this delete-history, just in case I rm a .c file that I need.
>
>But I don't want to keep a histor
On 11/06/06, Gregory Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pardon me if this scenario has been discussed already, but I haven't
seen anything as yet.
I'd like to request a 'zpool evacuate pool ' command.
'zpool evacuate' would migrate the data from a disk device to other
disks in the pool.
Here's the
This only seems valuable in the case of an unreplicated pool. We
already have 'zpool offline' to take a device and prevent ZFS from
talking to it (because it's in the process of failing, perhaps). This
gives you what you want for mirrored and RAID-Z vdevs, since there's no
data to migrate anyway.
On Jun 11, 2006, at 03:21, can you guess? wrote:
My dim recollection is that TOPS-10 implemented its popular (but
again <100%) undelete mechanism using the same kind of 'space-
available' approach suggested here. It did, however, support
explicit 'delete - I really mean it' facilities to he
I'm seeing odd behaviour when I create a ZFS raidz pool using three disks. The
output of "zpool status" shows the pool size as the size of the three disks
combined (as if it were a Raid 0 volume). This isn't expected behaviour is it?
When I create a mirrored volume in ZFS everything is as one
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0700, Nathanael Burton wrote:
> I'm seeing odd behaviour when I create a ZFS raidz pool using three
> disks. The output of "zpool status" shows the pool size as the size
> of the three disks combined (as if it were a Raid 0 volume). This
> isn't expected behavi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, I think I'd rather see this built into programs, such as 'rm', rather
than into the filesystem itself.
For example, if I'm using ZFS for my OpenSolaris development, I might want
to enable this delete-history, just in case I rm a .c file that I need.
But I don't w
Yes, if zpool remove works like you describe, it does the same
thing. Is there a time frame for that feature?
Thanks!
On Jun 11, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Eric Schrock wrote:
This only seems valuable in the case of an unreplicated pool. We
already have 'zpool offline' to take a device and prevent
12 matches
Mail list logo
