On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> If MTBFs were real, we'd never see disks failing within a year ;)
Remember that MTBF (and MTTR and MTTDL) are *statistics* and not
guarantees. If a type of drive has an MTBF of 10 years, then the MEAN
(average) time between failures for a
Over the past few months I have seen mention of FreeBSD a couple
time in regards to ZFS. My question is how stable (reliable) is ZFS on
this platform ?
This is for a home server and the reason I am asking is that about
a year ago I bought some hardware based on it's inclusion on the
Solari
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Paul Kraus wrote:
>Over the past few months I have seen mention of FreeBSD a couple
> time in regards to ZFS. My question is how stable (reliable) is ZFS on
> this platform ?
>
>This is for a home server and the reason I am asking is that about
> a year ag
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Paul Kraus wrote:
Over the past few months I have seen mention of FreeBSD a couple
time in regards to ZFS. My question is how stable (reliable) is ZFS on
this platform ?
This would be a very excellent question to ask on the related FreeBSD
mailing list (freebsd...@free
Hi,
I am using FreeBSD 8.2 in production with ZFS. Although I have had
one issue with it in the past but I would recommend it and I consider
it production ready. That said if you can wait for FreeBSD 8.3 or 9.0
to come out (a few months away) you will get a better system as these
will i
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Paul Kraus wrote:
> Over the past few months I have seen mention of FreeBSD a couple
> time in regards to ZFS. My question is how stable (reliable) is ZFS on
> this platform ?
ZFSv15, as shipped with FreeBSD 8.3, is rock stable in our uses. We
have two servers
The drives I just bought were half packed in white foam then wrapped
> in bubble wrap. Not all edges were protected with more than bubble
> wrap.
Same here for me. I purchased 10 x 2TB Hitachi 7200rpm SATA disks from
Newegg.com in March. The majority of the drives were protected in white
foam.
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Chris Mosetick wrote:
> to go in the packing dept. I still love their prices!
There's a reason fort at: you don't get what you don't pay for!
--
Rich Teer, Publisher
Vinylphile Magazine
www.vinylphilemag.com
___
zfs-discuss maili
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Paul Kraus wrote:
> P.S. If anyone here has a suggestion as to how to get Solaris to load
> I would love to hear it. I even tried disabling multi-cores (which
> makes the CPUs look like dual core instead of quad) with no change. I
> have not been able to get serial
We might have a better change of diagnosing your problem if we had a copy of
your panic message buffer. Have you considered OpenIndiana and illumos as an
option, or even NexentaStor if you are just looking for a storage appliance
(though my guess is that you need more general purpose compute ca
Wow- so a bit of an update:
With the default scrub delay:
echo "zfs_scrub_delay/K" | mdb -kw
zfs_scrub_delay:20004
pool0 14.1T 25.3T165499 1.28M 2.88M
pool0 14.1T 25.3T146 0 1.13M 0
pool0 14.1T 25.3T147 0 1.14M 0
pool0 14.1T
Don,
Try setting the zfs_scrub_delay to 1 but increase the
zfs_top_maxinflight to something like 64.
Thanks,
George
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Donald Stahl wrote:
> Wow- so a bit of an update:
>
> With the default scrub delay:
> echo "zfs_scrub_delay/K" | mdb -kw
> zfs_scrub_delay:200
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
>
> New problem:
>
> I'm following all the advice I summarized into the OP of this thread, and
> testing on a test system. (A laptop). And it's just not working. I am
> ju
> Try setting the zfs_scrub_delay to 1 but increase the
> zfs_top_maxinflight to something like 64.
The array is running some regression tests right now but when it
quiets down I'll try that change.
-Don
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolar
>> Try setting the zfs_scrub_delay to 1 but increase the
>> zfs_top_maxinflight to something like 64.
With the delay set to 1 or higher it doesn't matter what I set the
maxinflight value to- when I check with:
echo "::walk spa | ::print spa_t spa_name spa_last_io spa_scrub_inflight"
The value ret
15 matches
Mail list logo
