Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

Hi all, I fully understand that within a cost effective point of view, developing the fishworks for a reduced set of hardware makes , alot, of sense. However, i think that Sun/Oracle would increase their user base if they make availabe a Fishwork framework certified only for a reduced set of

[zfs-discuss] root pool can not have multiple vdevs ?

This seems like a bit of a restriction ... is this intended ? # cat /etc/release Solaris Express Community Edition snv_125 SPARC Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Use is subject to license terms.

Re: [zfs-discuss] root pool can not have multiple vdevs ?

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: > So essentially there is no way to grow that zpool. Is this the case? There's the option of getting a bigger disk and do a send - receive. I'm guessing the restriction is necessary for simplicity sake to allow bootloaders work with zfs root.

Re: [zfs-discuss] root pool can not have multiple vdevs ?

>On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> So essentially there is no way to grow that zpool. Is this the case? > >There's the option of getting a bigger disk and do a send - receive. >I'm guessing the restriction is necessary for simplicity sake to allow >bootloaders work with zfs

[zfs-discuss] Best practices for "zfs create"?

When I create a zfs filesystem there are lots of options. Which options are recommended? I use CIFS and then I choose mixedcasesensitivity=true. But it turns out that (due to a bug, fixed in b127) if I have non utf8 characters in the file name, I can not see the file in listings. So I should us

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best practices for "zfs create"?

Orvar Korvar wrote: When I create a zfs filesystem there are lots of options. Which options are recommended? That depends on what your needs are. The first consideration should be what kind of data you are storing. For a filesystem intended to be full of MP3 files it is wasteful of CPU and

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool getting in a stuck state?

Jeremy, I generally suspect device failures in this case and if possible, review the contents of /var/adm/messages and fmdump -eV to see if the pool hang could be attributed to failed or failing devices. Cindy On 10/26/09 17:28, Jeremy Kitchen wrote: Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Jeremy, Can

[zfs-discuss] resolve zfs properties "default" to actual value

Hi, how can I find out what the actual value when the default applies to a zfs property? # zfs get checksum mpool NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE mpool checksum on default (In this particular case I know what the value is, either fletcher2 or fletcher4 depending on the build) But how can one find ou

Re: [zfs-discuss] resolve zfs properties "default" to actual value

Hi Frederik, In most cases, you can use the zfs get syntax below or you can use the zfs get all fs-name to review all current property settings. The checksum property is a bit different in that you need to review the zfs.1m man page checksum property description to determine the value of the de

Re: [zfs-discuss] resolve zfs properties "default" to actual value

Thank you for the reply. I must admit that upon closer inspection alot of properties indeed do present the actual value. For the checksum property I used zdb - | grep fletcher to determine wether it was fletcher2 or fletcher4 was used for checksumming the filesystem. Using the OS build numb

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: > Hi all, > > I fully understand that within a cost effective point of view, developing > the fishworks for a reduced set of hardware makes , alot, of sense. > However, i think that Sun/Oracle would increase their user base if they > make avail

Re: [zfs-discuss] Dumb idea?

I remember BFS (BeOS) did something very similar, it had extended metadata attributes akin to having a relational DB built-in. Very searchable, it also had tagging with callback notification on filechanges so you don't have to waste cycles with periodic checking. On 10/26/09 01:22, zfs-disc

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

Hi, I can agree that the software is the one that really has the added value, but to my opinion allowing a stack like Fishworks to run outside the Sun Unified Storage would lead to lower price per unit(Fishwork license) but maybe increase revenue. Why an increase in revenues? Well, i assume t

[zfs-discuss] Sniping a bad inode in zfs?

I've have a single-fs, mirrored pool on my hands which recently went through a bout of corruption. I've managed to clean up a good bit of it but it appears that I'm left with some directories which have bad refcounts. For example, I have what should be an empty directory "foo" which, when you cd

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sniping a bad inode in zfs?

On 27-Oct-09, at 1:43 PM, Dale Ghent wrote: I've have a single-fs, mirrored pool on my hands which recently went through a bout of corruption. I've managed to clean up a good bit of it How did this occur? Isn't a mirrored pool supposed to self heal? --Toby but it appears that I'm left with

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sniping a bad inode in zfs?

da...@elemental.org said: > Normally on UFS I would just take the 'nuke it from orbit' route and use clri > to wipe the directory's inode. However, clri doesn't appear to be zfs aware > (there's not even a zfs analog of clri in /usr/lib/fs/ zfs), and I don't > immediately see an option in zdb which

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

On Oct 27, 2009, at 12:35 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: Hi all, I fully understand that within a cost effective point of view, developing the fishworks for a reduced set of hardware makes , alot, of sense. However, i think that Sun/Oracle would increase their user base if they make availabe a Fi

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool getting in a stuck state?

Cindy Swearingen wrote: > Jeremy, > > I generally suspect device failures in this case and if possible, > review the contents of /var/adm/messages and fmdump -eV to see > if the pool hang could be attributed to failed or failing devices. perusing /var/adm/messages, I see: Oct 22 05:06:11 homieba

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

>I can agree that the software is the one that really has the added >value, but to my opinion allowing a stack like Fishworks to run outside >the Sun Unified Storage would lead to lower price per unit(Fishwork >license) but maybe increase revenue. I'm afraid I don't see that argu

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Bruno Sousa wrote: I can agree that the software is the one that really has the added value, but to my opinion allowing a stack like Fishworks to run outside the Sun Unified Storage would lead to lower price per unit(Fishwork license) but maybe increase revenue. Why an inc

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

Hi Adam, thank you for your precise statement. Be it "only" from an engineering standpoint, this is the kind of argumentation which I was expecting (and hoping for). I'm not sure what would lead you to believe that there is fork between the open source / OpenSolaris ZFS and what we have in F

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

On Oct 27, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Bryan Cantrill wrote: I can agree that the software is the one that really has the added value, but to my opinion allowing a stack like Fishworks to run outside the Sun Unified Storage would lead to lower price per unit(Fishwork license) but maybe increa

Re: [zfs-discuss] "zfs send..." too slow?

On Sun, October 25, 2009 03:45, Orvar Korvar wrote: > It seems that "zfs send..." takes quite some time? 300GB takes 10 hours, > this far. And I have in total 3TB to backup. This means it will take 100 > hours. Is this normal? If I had 30TB to back up, it would take 1000 hours, > which is more th

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

On Oct 27, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Bryan Cantrill wrote: I can agree that the software is the one that really has the added value, but to my opinion allowing a stack like Fishworks to run outside the Sun Unified Storage would lead to lower price per unit(Fishwork license) but maybe increase revenue

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool getting in a stuck state?

Jeremy Kitchen wrote: > Cindy Swearingen wrote: >> Jeremy, >> >> I generally suspect device failures in this case and if possible, >> review the contents of /var/adm/messages and fmdump -eV to see >> if the pool hang could be attributed to failed or failing devices. > > perusing /var/adm/messages,

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

> >> I can agree that the software is the one that really has the added > >> value, but to my opinion allowing a stack like Fishworks to run > >>outside > >> the Sun Unified Storage would lead to lower price per unit(Fishwork > >> license) but maybe increase revenue. > > > >I'm afraid I don'

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool getting in a stuck state?

Hi Jeremy, The ereport.io.scsi.cmd.disk.tran is describing connections problems to the /p...@0,0/pci8086,4...@5/pci1000,3...@0/s...@30,0 device. I think the .tran suffix is for transient. ZFS might be reporting problems with device as well, but if the zpool/zfs commands are hanging, then it migh

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Dale Ghent wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Bryan Cantrill wrote: > > >> I can agree that the software is the one that really has the added > value, but to my opinion allowing a stack like Fishworks to run > outside > the Sun Unified Storage wo

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool getting in a stuck state?

Jeremy, I can't comment on your hardware because I'm not familiar with it. If you have a storage pool with ZFS redundancy and one device fails or begins failing, then the pool keeps going, in a degraded mode but is generally available. You can try setting the failmode property to continue, whic

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

> are you going to ask NetApp to support ONTAP on Dell systems, well, ONTAP 5.0 is built on freebsd, so it wouldn't be too hard to boot on dell hardware. Hay, at least it can do aggregates larger than 16T now... http://www.netapp.com/us/library/technical-reports/tr-3786.html

Re: [zfs-discuss] gigabyte iram

> "ma" == Matthias Appel writes: ma> At the moment I'm considering using a Gigabyte iRAM as ZIL acard ans-9010 backs up to CF on power loss. also has a sneaky ``ECC emulation'' mode that rearranges non-ECC memory into blocks and then dedicates some bits to ECC, so you don't have to pay

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

Bruno Sousa wrote: Hi, I can agree that the software is the one that really has the added value, but to my opinion allowing a stack like Fishworks to run outside the Sun Unified Storage would lead to lower price per unit(Fishwork license) but maybe increase revenue. Why an increase

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20

> "jc" == Jake Caferilla writes: jc> But remember, this example system, has massive parallel jc> scalability. jc> I issue 2 read requests, both read requests return after 1 jc> minute. yeah, it's interesting to consider overall software stacks that might have unnecessary ser

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20

Miles Nordin wrote: For example, Postfix will do one or two fsync()'s per mail it receives from the Interent into its internal queue, but I think it can be working on receiving many mails at once, all waiting on fsync's together. If the filesystem stack pushes these fsync's all the way down to t

[zfs-discuss] zpool import single user mode incompatible version

I know this is opensolaris and Solaris, but I'm stuck... I want to demonstrate to my client how to recover an unbootable system from a zfs snapshot. (Say some dope rm -rf /kernel/drv...) Running Solaris 10 U8 sparc. Normal procedures are boot cdrom -s (or boot net -s) zpool import rpool zfs rol

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

Trevor, Could not agree more, but not every costumer likes to have only a fancy GUI, even that this GUI is very well designed. However my point of view is based on the fact that the part of the software behind the Fishworks could be possible to install in other Sun servers, besides the 7xxx s

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import single user mode incompatible version

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Paul Lyons wrote: > I know this is opensolaris and Solaris, but I'm stuck... > > I want to demonstrate to my client how to recover an unbootable system from > a zfs snapshot. (Say some dope rm -rf /kernel/drv...) Running Solaris 10 U8 > sparc. > > Normal procedure

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

I just curious to see how much effort would it take to put the software of FISH running within a Sun X4275... Anyway..lets wait and see. Bruno On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:29:24 -0500 (CDT), Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Bruno Sousa wrote: > >> I can agree that the software is the one

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import single user mode incompatible version

Tim Cook wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Paul Lyons > wrote: When I boot off Solaris 10 U8 I get the error that pool is formatted using an incompatible version. You're booting from an old cd that has an old version of zfs. Grab a new iso. It m

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

Hi, Given the fact that i worked in the Healthcare industry and alot of my former customers wished to be able to run the former Sun NAS 5310 software in other hardware, i can see a interesting possible business case. In my former job, my customers liked the software used in the Sun StorageTek NAS

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import single user mode incompatible version

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:59 PM, dick hoogendijk wrote: > Tim Cook wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Paul Lyons > paulrly...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>When I boot off Solaris 10 U8 I get the error that pool is >>formatted using an incompatible version. >> >> >> You're booti

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

Hi, Maybe during this emails you have missed the point that no one is requesting anything..we are just discussing a possible usage of FISHworks outside of the 7xxx series..more specific in other Sun Server. If i choose the personal point of view, my biggest wish is that i would love to run FI

[zfs-discuss] zpool failmode

Hi, I am trying to understand the behavior of zpool failmode=continue rpool. I've read the man page regarding to this and I understand that the default mode is set to wait. So If I set up my zfs pool to continue, in the case of loss of connectivity, what is this setting supposed to do? Does s

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool failmode

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:13 PM, deniz rende wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to understand the behavior of zpool failmode=continue rpool. > > I've read the man page regarding to this and I understand that the default > mode is set to wait. So If I set up my zfs pool to continue, in the case of > los

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

As far as I know, its an effort! Not just for x4275 specifically, but in general with any other x86 hardware and storage oriented software. A lot of work required to support a final solution as well. What Nexenta does with its version of NexentaStor is enabling third-party Partners to integrate

[zfs-discuss] Moving an dataset zpool from a local zone to the global zone

I'm wondering if anyone has run into this before. I've got a zone that has a zpool added into it as a dataset. I need to remove the zpool from the zone and mount on the global zone directly. I can remove the dataset from the zone config and remove the zpool from the zone. But I am having trou

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

On Tue, Oct 27 at 18:58, Bryan Cantrill wrote: Why would we do this? I'm all for zero-cost endeavors, but this isn't zero-cost -- and I'm having a hard time seeing the business case here, especially when we have so many paying customers for whom the business case for our time and energy is cryst

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Eric D. Mudama wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27 at 18:58, Bryan Cantrill wrote: > >> Why would we do this? I'm all for zero-cost endeavors, but this isn't >> zero-cost -- and I'm having a hard time seeing the business case here, >> especially when we have so many paying c

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

Tim Cook wrote: PS: Not having enough engineers to support a growing and paying customer base is a *good* problem to have. The opposite is much, much worse. So use Nexenta? Got data you care about? Verify extensively before you jump to that ship.. :) __