- Forwarded message from Nico Williams -
From: Nico Williams
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 16:22:27 -0500
To: Crypto discussion list
Subject: Re: [cryptography] rolling hashes, EDC/ECC vs MAC/MIC, etc.
Reply-To: Crypto discussion list
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Zooko O'Whielacronx wro
On May 21, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> - Forwarded message from Zooko O'Whielacronx -
>
> From: Zooko O'Whielacronx
> Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 12:50:19 -0600
> To: Crypto discussion list
> Subject: Re: [cryptography] rolling hashes, EDC/ECC vs MAC/MIC, etc.
> Reply-To: Crypt
Hi all,
As I wrote before, I have a "dpcool" implemented as an iSCSI
device stored in a volume of my physical "pool". When there
are many operations, such as attempts to destroy a dataset
(which leads to many small IOs in my config), the iSCSI
device is 100% busy for hours, latencies can grow t
comment below...
On May 22, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As I wrote before, I have a "dpcool" implemented as an iSCSI
> device stored in a volume of my physical "pool". When there
> are many operations, such as attempts to destroy a dataset
> (which leads to many small IOs
2011-05-22 20:39, Richard Elling wrote:
This means that the target closed the connection because there was
already a task in progress.
Likely this was the retry after the timeout. By default, these
timeouts are quite long, so by now
performance is already terrible.
I'm not sure if you ca
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Richard Elling
wrote:
> ZFS already tracks the blocks that have been written, and the time that
> they were written. So we already know when something was writtem, though
> that does not answer the question of whether the data was changed. I think
> it is a pretty
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> [...] Or perhaps you'll argue that no one should ever need bi-di
> replication, that if one finds oneself wanting that then one has taken
> a wrong turn somewhere.
You could also grant the premise and argue instead that nothing the
filesyste
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl
>
> This would enable applications—without needing any further
> in-filesystem code—to perform a Merkle Tree sync, which would range
> from "noticeably more efficient" to "dramatica
On May 22, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Richard Elling
> wrote:
>> ZFS already tracks the blocks that have been written, and the time that
>> they were written. So we already know when something was writtem, though
>> that does not answer the questi
