From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Sigbjorn Lie
What about mirroring? Do I need mirrored ZIL devices in case of a power
outage?
You don't need mirroring for the sake of *power outage* but you *do* need
mirroring for the sa
Hello, first time posting. I've been working with zfs on and off with limited
*nix experience for a year or so now, and have read a lot of things by a lot of
you I'm sure. Still tons I don't understand/know I'm sure.
We've been having awful IO latencies on our 7210 running about 40 VM's spread
Hi all,
I'm running out of space on my OpenSolaris file server and can't afford to buy
any new storage for a short while. Seeing at the machine has a dual core CPU
at 2.2GHz and 4GB ram, I was thinking compression might be the way to go...
I've read a small amount about compression, enough to
On 25 Jul 2010, at 14:12, Ben wrote:
> I've read a small amount about compression, enough to find that it'll effect
> performance (not a problem for me) and that once you enable compression it
> only effects new files written to the file system.
Yes, that's true. Compression on defaults to l
I have a semi-theoretical question about the following code in arc.c,
arc_reclaim_needed() function:
/*
* take 'desfree' extra pages, so we reclaim sooner, rather than later
*/
extra = desfree;
/*
* check that we're out of range of the pageout scanner. It starts to
* schedule paging if free
Hello Mark,
I assume you have a read-intensive workload, not many synchronous writes, so
leave out the ZIL, please try:
* configure the controller to show individual disks, no RAID
* create one large striped pool (zpool create tank c0t0d{1,2,3,4,5})
* if your SSD is c0t0d6, use it as an L2ARC (z
Thanks Alex,
I've set compression on and have transferred data from the OpenSolaris machine
to my Mac, deleted any snapshots and am now transferring them back.
It seems to be working, but there's lots to transfer!
I didn't know that MacZFS was still going, it's great to hear that people are
sti
Why not just set other mountpoint for your zfs dir?
# zfs set mountpoint=/pool/3 path/to/zfs/dir
After that contents of /pool/zfs3 would be shown under /pool/3.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@openso
On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:14 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: Arne Jansen [mailto:sensi...@gmx.net]
>>>
>>> Can anyone else confirm or deny the correctness of this statement?
>>
>> As I understand it that's the whole point of raidz. Each block is its
>> own
>> stripe.
>
> Nope, that doesn't
> On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 22:20 -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Linder, Doug
> > >
> > > On a related note - all other things being equal, is
> there any reason
> > > to choose NFS over
On 2010-Jul-25 21:12:08 +0800, Ben wrote:
>I've read a small amount about compression, enough to find that it'll effect
>performance (not a problem for me) and that once you enable compression it
>only effects new files written to the file system.
>Is this still true of b134? And if it is, ho
>> I've read a small amount about compression, enough to find that it'll effect
>> performance (not a problem for me) and that once you enable compression it
>> only effects new files written to the file system.
>
> Yes, that's true. Compression on defaults to lzjb which is fast; but gzip-9
>
OK...decided to do a fresh install of Fedora (FC12)...install completed to
iScsi target...now trying to boot it.
Fedora is finding the target, then then throwing an "I/O error". When I snoop
on the ZFS server I see the following:
1) Initiator connects and logs into the target OK
2) Initiator i
On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 17:53 -0400, Saxon, Will wrote:
>
> I think there may be very good reason to use iSCSI, if you're limited
> to gigabit but need to be able to handle higher throughput for a
> single client. I may be wrong, but I believe iSCSI to/from a single
> initiator can take advantage of
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 17:53 -0400, Saxon, Will wrote:
>>
>> I think there may be very good reason to use iSCSI, if you're limited
>> to gigabit but need to be able to handle higher throughput for a
>> single client. I may be wrong, but I be
Gr...I finally figured out I was specifying the wrong LUN (I was using 1 in
earlier testing but current targets are Lun 0).
I also mispoke...this is actually Etherboot's gPXE's Iscsi logic, NOT fedora.
Here it is working now:
iSCSI (SCSI Data In)
Opcode: SCSI Data In (0x25)
Flags: 0
On Jul 24, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> I remember asking about this a long time ago, and everybody seemed to think
> it was a non-issue. The vague and unclearly reported rumor that ZFS behaves
> poorly when it's 100% full. Well now I have one really solid data point to
> con
On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 21:39 -0500, Mike Gerdts wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-07-25 at 17:53 -0400, Saxon, Will wrote:
> >>
> >> I think there may be very good reason to use iSCSI, if you're limited
> >> to gigabit but need to be able to handle hi
18 matches
Mail list logo
