Matty writes:
> Are there any plans to support record sizes larger than 128k? We use
> ZFS file systems for disk staging on our backup servers (compression
> is a nice feature here), and we typically configure the disk staging
> process to read and write large blocks (typically 1MB or so). This
The case is a Sharkoon Rebel9 (Economy edition, has no integrated fans), I
bought it from an italian online store, and I think it's commercialized in
Germany, it has 9 5"1/4 frontal slots
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mail
Eric Schrock wrote:
> Yes, this would be useful. See:
>
> 6364688 method to preserve properties when making a clone
Thanks for that pointer. I'd say it should be the default - but then
that was basically the topic of this thread :-)
> The infrastructure is all there (zfs_clone() takes an nvli
Thanks, did it come with the hardware to mount HDD's in 5.25" slots?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Hello,
in a benchmark a find to a filename (find -name foobar ) , ZFS is approx
7 times slower than an XFS filesystem (14 minutes ZFS,2 Minutes XFS).
The filesystem consists out of a huge amount of files.
I assume, that ZFS has no comparable function to the directory indexes
like XFS or the di
>Hello,
>
>in a benchmark a find to a filename (find -name foobar ) , ZFS is approx
>7 times slower than an XFS filesystem (14 minutes ZFS,2 Minutes XFS).
>The filesystem consists out of a huge amount of files.
>
>I assume, that ZFS has no comparable function to the directory indexes
>like XFS
Hello,
in a different benchmark run on the same system, the gfind took 15
minutes whereas the standarf find took 18 minutes. With find and
noatime=off the benchmark took 14 minutes. But even this is slow
compared to 2-3 minutes of the xfs system.
Regards
Joerg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Joerg Moellenkamp wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in a different benchmark run on the same system, the gfind took 15
> minutes whereas the standarf find took 18 minutes. With find and
> noatime=off the benchmark took 14 minutes. But even this is slow
> compared to 2-3 minutes of the xfs system.
just askin
Joerg Moellenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> in a different benchmark run on the same system, the gfind took 15
> minutes whereas the standarf find took 18 minutes. With find and
> noatime=off the benchmark took 14 minutes. But even this is slow
> compared to 2-3 minutes of the xfs
On 9/4/07, Gino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yesterday we had a drive failure on a fc-al jbod with 14 drives.
> Suddenly the zpool using that jbod stopped to respond to I/O requests
> and we get tons of the following messages on /var/adm/messages:
> "cfgadm -al" or "devfsadm -C" didn't solve th
I'm now using the CM Stacker 810 for my file server and I love it.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1689093
It comes with one 4-in-3 drive cage and has room for 2 more (3 if you
remove the front I/O panel). The drive cages are excellent - mounted
with rubber washers to abso
Is it possible to force ZFS to "nicely" re-organize data inside a zpool
after a new root level vdev has been introduced?
e.g. Take a pool with 1 vdev consisting of a 2 disk mirror. Populate some
arbitrary files using about 50% of the capacity. Then add another 2
mirrored disks to the pool.
It s
Hi All,
I'm a total newbie to solaris so apologies if the answer is obvious, but google
is not my friend today.
I'm installing opensolaris on an intel based machine with an IDE drive for
booting and 2 SATA disks that I plan to use for a ZFS based NAS. I manged to
get opensolaris installed, bu
On 9/5/07, Peter Bridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1x Promise sata ii 150 TX4
That controller doesn't work with Solaris. Marvell 88sx6081s (like
the Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8), LSI Logic controllers, and Sil3124s
(from a variety of manufacturers) are. AHCI controllers like the
Intel ICH series sh
http://news.com.com/NetApp+files+patent+suit+against+Sun/2100-1014_3-6206194.html
I'm curious how many of those patent filings cover technologies that
they carried over from Auspex.
While it is legal for them to do so, it is a bit shady to inherit
technology (two paths; employees departing Ausp
http://www.netapp.com/go/ipsuit/spider-complaint.pdf
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
About 2 years ago I was able to get a little closer to the patent
litigation process,
by way of giving a deposition in litigation that was filed against Sun
and Apple
(and has been settled).
Apparently, there's an entire sub-economy built on patent litigation
among the
technology players. Suits
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:43:38PM -0500, Rob Windsor wrote:
> (No, I'm not defending Sun in it's apparent patent-growling, either, it
> all sucks IMO.)
In contrast to the positioning by NetApp, Sun didn't start the patent
fight. It was started by StorageTek, well prior to Sun's acquisition of
t
Bill Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:43:38PM -0500, Rob Windsor wrote:
> > (No, I'm not defending Sun in it's apparent patent-growling, either, it
> > all sucks IMO.)
>
> In contrast to the positioning by NetApp, Sun didn't start the patent
> fight. It was started b
Paul Kraus wrote:
> On 9/4/07, Gino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> yesterday we had a drive failure on a fc-al jbod with 14 drives.
>> Suddenly the zpool using that jbod stopped to respond to I/O requests
>> and we get tons of the following messages on /var/adm/messages:
>
>
>
>> "cfgadm -al"
Solaris wrote:
> Is it possible to force ZFS to "nicely" re-organize data inside a zpool
> after a new root level vdev has been introduced?
Currently, ZFS will not reorganize the existing data for such cases.
You can force this to occur by copying the data and removing the old,
but that seems lik
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:43:38PM -0500, Rob Windsor wrote:
> http://news.com.com/NetApp+files+patent+suit+against+Sun/2100-1014_3-6206194.html
>
> I'm curious how many of those patent filings cover technologies that
> they carried over from Auspex.
>
> While it is legal for them to do so, it i
Nicolas Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:43:38PM -0500, Rob Windsor wrote:
> > http://news.com.com/NetApp+files+patent+suit+against+Sun/2100-1014_3-6206194.html
> >
> > I'm curious how many of those patent filings cover technologies that
> > they carried over from
On 9/5/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I wrote before, my wofs (designed and implemented 1989-1990 for SunOS 4.0,
> published May 23th 1991) is copy on write based, does not need fsck and always
> offers a stable view on the media because it is COW.
Side question:
If COW is su
mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As I wrote before, my wofs (designed and implemented 1989-1990 for SunOS
> > 4.0,
> > published May 23th 1991) is copy on write based, does not need fsck and
> > always
> > offers a stable view on the med
mike wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As I wrote before, my wofs (designed and implemented 1989-1990 for SunOS 4.0,
>> published May 23th 1991) is copy on write based, does not need fsck and
>> always
>> offers a stable view on the media because it is COW.
>
> Sid
Hello,
Not sure if anyone at Sun can comment on this, but I thought it might
be of interest to the list:
> This morning, NetApp filed an IP (intellectual property) lawsuit
> against Sun. It has two parts. The first is a “declaratory
> judgment”, asking the court to decide whether we infring
"James C. McPherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If COW is such an old concept, why haven't there been many filesystems
> > that have become popular that use it? ZFS, BTRFS (I think) and maybe
> > WAFL? At least that I know of. It seems like an excellent guarantee of
> > disk commitment, yet we
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The best documented one is the inverted meta data tree that allows wofs to
> write
> only one new generation node for one modified file while ZFS needs to also
> write new
> nodes for all directories above the file including the root directory in the
> fs.
I believe you
Atul Vidwansa wrote:
> ZFS Experts,
>
> Is it possible to use DMU as general purpose transaction engine? More
> specifically, in following order:
>
> 1. Create transaction:
> tx = dmu_tx_create(os);
> error = dmu_tx_assign(tx, TXG_WAIT)
>
> 2. Decide what to modify(say create new object):
> dmu_
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 14:26 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> AFAIK, nobody has characterized resilvering, though this is about the 4th
> time this week someone has brought the topic up. Has anyone done work here
> that we don't know about? If so, please speak up :-)
I haven't been conducting contr
Hello,
I think I have gained "sufficient fool" status for testing the
fool-proof-ness of zfs. I have a cluster of T1000 servers running
Solaris 10 and two x4100's running an OpenSolaris dist (Nexenta) which
is at b68. Each T1000 hosts several zones each of which has its own
zpool associate
32 matches
Mail list logo
