Frank Middleton writes:
> It's even worse if you have an old SPARC system. We've had great results
> with some LSI LOGIC SAS3041XL-S cards we got on E-Bay in conjunction
> with 3x1.5TB Seagate drives, for 2.7TiB of raidz. The combination proved
> faster than mirrored 10,000 RPM SCSI disks using U
Is there some handy way to make notations about zpools. Something
that would show up in the output of `zpool status' (or some other
command)
I mean descriptive notes maybe outlining the zpools' purpose?
Browsing around in `man zpool' I don't see that, but may be
overlooking it. The man page is
On Mar 29, 2009, at 00:41, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well I might back up the more important stuff offsite. But in theory
it's all replaceable. Just would be a pain.
And what is the cost of the time to replace it versus the price of a
hard disk? Time ~ money.
There used to be a time when I li
Okay so riddle me this - can I create a raidz2 using the new disks and
move all the data from the existing zdev to it. Then recreate a raidz2
this time using the old 7 disks ?
And have them all stay in the same Zpool?
Side note: does the port I plug the drive into matter on the
controller?
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Michael Shadle wrote:
Okay so riddle me this - can I create a raidz2 using the new disks and move
all the data from the existing zdev to it. Then recreate a raidz2 this time
using the old 7 disks ?
And have them all stay in the same Zpool?
You will have to create a new
On 03/29/09 11:58, David Magda wrote:
On Mar 29, 2009, at 00:41, Michael Shadle wrote:
Well I might back up the more important stuff offsite. But in theory
it's all replaceable. Just would be a pain.
And what is the cost of the time to replace it versus the price of a
hard disk? Time ~ money.
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Frank Middleton wrote:
So what is best if you get a 4th drive for a 3 drive raidz? Is it
better to keep it separate and use it for backups of the replaceable
data (perhaps on a different machine), as a hot spare, second parity,
or something else? Seems so un-green to have it
On Mar 29, 2009, at 12:40, Frank Middleton wrote:
So what is best if you get a 4th drive for a 3 drive raidz? Is it
better to keep it separate and use it for backups of the replaceable
data (perhaps on a different machine), as a hot spare, second parity,
or something else? Seems so un-green to h
On Mar 29, 2009, at 12:17, Michael Shadle wrote:
Okay so riddle me this - can I create a raidz2 using the new disks
and move all the data from the existing zdev to it. Then recreate a
raidz2 this time using the old 7 disks?
And have them all stay in the same Zpool?
Yes, I believe so.
C
On Mar 29, 2009, at 13:24, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
With so few drives it does not make sense to use raidz2, and
particularly since raidz2 still does not protect against user error,
OS bugs, severe over-voltage from a common power supply, or
meteorite strike.
I remember reading on this list
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Brent Jones wrote:
>> I have since modified some scripts out there, and rolled them into my
>> own, you can see it here at pastebin.com:
>>
>> http://pastebin.com/m3871e478
>
> Thanks Brent.
>
> Your scrip
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Is there some handy way to make notations about zpools. Something
> that would show up in the output of `zpool status' (or some other
> command)
>
> I mean descriptive notes maybe outlining the zpools' purpose?
>
> Browsing around in `man zpo
Tim wrote:
I did NOT say nobody recommends using raid5. What I *DID* say was
that NOBODY supports using raid-5 and raid-6 under a single pool of
storage. Which IBM array are you referring to that is supported with
RAID5 and 6 in a single pool?
Thanks for the clarification, Tim, I thought
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM, David Magda wrote:
> Create new pool, move data to it (zfs send/recv), destroy old RAID-Z1 pool.
Would send/recv be more efficient than just a massive rsync or related?
Also I'd have to reduce the data on my existing raidz1 as it is almost
full, and the raidz2
Cake. See below...
Harry Putnam wrote:
This may be a bit poorly thought through but in this case I don't
really know enough to really think it through.
My back ground is linux... there I used a tool called rsnapshot which
used rsync and some hardlink magic to create versioned backups. But
take
This may be a bit poorly thought through but in this case I don't
really know enough to really think it through.
My back ground is linux... there I used a tool called rsnapshot which
used rsync and some hardlink magic to create versioned backups. But
take very little space.
By versioned I don't m
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Michael Shadle wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM, David Magda wrote:
>
>> Create new pool, move data to it (zfs send/recv), destroy old RAID-Z1 pool.
>
> Would send/recv be more efficient than just a massive rsync or related?
>
> Also I'd have to reduce th
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Brent Jones wrote:
> I'd personally say send/recv would be more efficient, rsync is awfully
> slow on large data sets. But, it depends what build you are using!
> BugID 6418042 (slow zfs send/recv) was fixed in build 105, it impacted
> send/recv operations local t
Harry Putnam wrote:
This may be a bit poorly thought through but in this case I don't
really know enough to really think it through.
My back ground is linux... there I used a tool called rsnapshot which
used rsync and some hardlink magic to create versioned backups. But
take very little space.
On Mar 29, 2009, at 16:37, Michael Shadle wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 10:35 AM, David Magda
wrote:
Create new pool, move data to it (zfs send/recv), destroy old RAID-
Z1 pool.
Would send/recv be more efficient than just a massive rsync or
related?
Also I'd have to reduce the data o
I agree with Chris -- I'd much rather do something like:
zfs clone snap1 clone1 snap2 clone2 snap3 clone3 ...
than introduce a pattern grammar. Supporting multiple snap/clone pairs
on the command line allows you to do just about anything atomically.
Jeff
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:46:3
Brent Jones writes:
> zfs set note:purpose="This file system is important"
>
> zfs get note:purpose somefilesystem
>
> Maybe that helps...
Heck of a start... thanks. It would be nice to be able to find that
stuff per zpool though, because to me it gets kind of confusing where
zfs filesytems sto
On 29 Mar 2009, at 23:19, Jeff Bonwick wrote:
I agree with Chris -- I'd much rather do something like:
zfs clone snap1 clone1 snap2 clone2 snap3 clone3 ...
than introduce a pattern grammar. Supporting multiple snap/clone
pairs
on the command line allows you to do just about anythi
Richard Elling writes:
> Cake. See below...
At high risk of sounding very stupid... I guess Cake went right over
my head. Unless its short for `piece of cake'. Ok now you now you
know how deep seated that vein of dimness really is.
[...]
> Administration -> Time Slider
>
>> The end goal bei
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Harry Putnam wrote:
Brent Jones writes:
zfs set note:purpose="This file system is important"
zfs get note:purpose somefilesystem
Maybe that helps...
Heck of a start... thanks. It would be nice to be able to find that
stuff per zpool though, because to me it gets kind
Harry Putnam writes:
> I've already bought a sil3114 chip card off ebay ($20 us) yesterday so
> I'll see how I fare on that first. I'm told it will recognize sata II
> if you flash it to latest bios update. I'm not sure but that may also
> be possible with the card I'm having the trouble with.
Bob Friesenhahn writes:
[...]
> A useful way to obtain the mount point for a directory is with the
> df' command. Just do 'df .' while in a directory to see where its
> filesystem mount point is:
>
> % df .
> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> Sun_2540/home/bf
I'm in well over my head with this report from zpool status saying:
root # zpool status z3
pool: z3
state: DEGRADED
status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data
corruption. Applications may be affected.
action: Restore the file in question if possible. Otherw
Harry Putnam wrote:
Richard Elling writes:
Cake. See below...
At high risk of sounding very stupid... I guess Cake went right over
my head. Unless its short for `piece of cake'. Ok now you now you
know how deep seated that vein of dimness really is.
[...]
and eat it, too... :
Hello David and Michael,
Well I might back up the more important stuff offsite. But in theory
it's all replaceable. Just would be a pain.
And what is the cost of the time to replace it versus the price of a hard
disk? Time ~ money.
This is true, but there is one counterpoint. If you do ra
30 matches
Mail list logo
