> From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:10 PM
>
> These are additional
> iops that dedup creates, not ones that it substitutes for others in
> roughly equal number.
Hey ZFS developers - Of course there are many ways to possibly address these
issues. T
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Carosone
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> > The systems where we have had issues, are two 100TB boxes, with some
> > 160TB "raw" storage each,
Any support contract is worth some things
In your case you will need
1. Server contract
2. Array contract or part of server
3. Solaris/solaris express support
There is no free lunch, if you want support you will need to pay $ or your xxx
is on the line
My 2c
Sent from my iPad
Hung-Sheng Tsao (
In message <4dddc270.6060...@u.washington.edu>, Matt Weatherford writes:
>amount of $ on. This is a great box and we love it, although the EDU
>discounts that Sun used to provide for hardware and support contracts
>seem to have dried up so the cost of supporting it moving forward is
>still unkno
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
>
> Both the necessity to read & write the primary storage pool... That's
very
> hurtful.
Actually, I'm seeing two different modes of degradation:
(1) Previously describe
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Gustav wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Can someone please give some advise on the following?
>
> We are installing a 7320 with 2 18 GB Write Accelerators, 20 x 1 TB disks
> and 96 GB of ram.
>
> Postgres will be running on a Oracle x6270 device with 96GB of ram
> installed a
Hey, I got another question for ZFS developers -
Given: If you enable dedup and write a bunch of data, and then disable
dedup, the formerly written data will remain dedup'd.
Given: The zdb -s command, which simulates dedup to provide dedup
statistics without actually enabling dedup.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
wrote:
> Question: Is it possible, or can it easily become possible, to periodically
> dedup a pool instead of keeping dedup running all the time? It is easy to
I think it's been discussed before, and the conclusion is that it
would require bp_
How bad would raidz2 do on mostly sequential writes and reads
(Athlon64 single-core, 4 GByte RAM, FreeBSD 8.2)?
The best way is to go is striping mirrored pools, right?
I'm worried about losing the two "wrong" drives out of 8.
These are all 7200.11 Seagates, refurbished. I'd scrub
once a week, t
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Matt Weatherford
> wrote:
>
>> pike# zpool get version internal
>> NAME PROPERTY VALUESOURCE
>> internal version 28 default
>> pike# zpool get version external-J4400-12x1TB
>> NAME
> How bad would raidz2 do on mostly sequential writes and reads
> (Athlon64 single-core, 4 GByte RAM, FreeBSD 8.2)?
>
> The best way is to go is striping mirrored pools, right?
> I'm worried about losing the two "wrong" drives out of 8.
> These are all 7200.11 Seagates, refurbished. I'd scrub
> on
Thank you,
I will be creating one big pool on the 7320, and with hardware raid four hard
drives for the WALL locally.
I have read the documentation, and have used the principles from there, but it
is not all applicable to my needs,
I will look at the help in the application Simulator as well,
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> How bad would raidz2 do on mostly sequential writes and reads
> (Athlon64 single-core, 4 GByte RAM, FreeBSD 8.2)?
I was using a similar but slightly higher spec setup (quad-core cpu &
8 GB RAM) at home and didn't have any problems with an 8-dr
On 05/27/11 04:34 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
How bad would raidz2 do on mostly sequential writes and reads
(Athlon64 single-core, 4 GByte RAM, FreeBSD 8.2)?
The best way is to go is striping mirrored pools, right?
I'm worried about losing the two "wrong" drives out of 8.
These are all 7200.11 Seaga
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 08:20:03AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Carosone
> >
> > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> > > The systems where we h
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 09:04:04AM -0700, Brandon High wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
> wrote:
> > Question:? Is it possible, or can it easily become possible, to periodically
> > dedup a pool instead of keeping dedup running all the time?? It is easy to
>
> I think i
2011-05-26 19:37, Edward Ned Harvey ?:
Hey, I got another question for ZFS developers -
Given: If you enable dedup and write a bunch of data, and then
disable dedup, the formerly written data will remain dedup'd.
Given: The zdb -s command, which simulates dedup to provide dedup
statis
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 07:38:05AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > From: Daniel Carosone [mailto:d...@geek.com.au]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 10:10 PM
> >
> > These are additional
> > iops that dedup creates, not ones that it substitutes for others in
> > roughly equal number.
>
> Hey
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 04:32:03AM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
> One more rationale in this idea is that with deferred dedup
> in place, the DDT may be forced to hold only non-unique
> blocks (2+ references), and would require less storage in
> RAM, disk, L2ARC, etc. - in case we agree to remake the
>
I actually didn't know that their meetings were totally open. I'm more
familiar with IEEE, T10, and similar bodies which are most definitely not open.
-- Garrett D'Amore
On May 25, 2011, at 6:12 PM, "Bob Friesenhahn"
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> You are welcom
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:25:04AM -0400, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> (2) Now, in a pool with 2.4M unique blocks and dedup enabled (no verify), a
> test file requires 10m38s to write and 2m54s to delete, but with dedup
> disabled it only requires 0m40s to write and 0m13s to delete exactly the
> same
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:54:16PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:52:04PM +1000, Daniel Carosone wrote:
> > > Other than the initial create, and the most
> > > recent scrub, the history only contains a sequence of auto-snapshot
> > > creations and removals. None of
On May 25, 2011 7:15 AM, "Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
>
> You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards
that do not meet in public. [...]
True.
> [...] In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies that *do* hold open
meetings.
I can: the IETF, for example. All busin
23 matches
Mail list logo
