[zfs-discuss] s10u8: lots of fixes, any commentary?

So looking at the README for patch 14144[45]-09, there are ton of ZFS fixes and feature adds. The big features are already described in the update 8 release docs, but would anyone in-the-know care to comment or point out any interesting CR fixes that might be substantial in the areas of

[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] 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 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] zfs/io performance on Netra X1

There is also a long-standing bug in the ALi chipset used on these servers which ZFS tickles. I don't think a work-around for this bug was ever implemented, and it's still present in Solaris 10. On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Richard Elling wrote: > The Netra X1 has one ATA bus for both intern

Re: [zfs-discuss] Planed ZFS-Features - Is there a List or something else

What you're talking about is a side-benefit of the BP rewrite section of the linked slides. I believe that once BP rewrite is fully baked, we'll soon afterwards see a device removal feature arrive. /dale On Dec 9, 2009, at 3:46 PM, R.G. Keen wrote: > I didn't see "remove a simple device" any

Re: [zfs-discuss] Do you grok it?

On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > greenBytes has a very well produced teaser commercial on their site. >http://www.green-bytes.com > > Actually, I think it is one of the better commercials done by tech > companies in a long time. Do you grok it? Did I detect a (well-done)

Re: [zfs-discuss] Rewrite vdev label?

On Nov 11, 2008, at 11:13 PM, Dan Mick wrote: > I have a situation where the first part of the first label on the > vdev is > corrupted (from 8K to 16K on the slice). > > Can I use a zfs/zpool command to rewrite that label from one of the > other three? > So far I've tried I'm not aware of so

Re: [zfs-discuss] Performance bake off vxfs/ufs/zfs need some help

Are you putting your archive and redo logs on a separate zpool (not just a different zfs fs with the same pool as your data files) ? Are you using direct io at all in any of the config scenarios you listed? /dale On Nov 22, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Chris Greer wrote: > So to give a little backgr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Looking for new SATA/SAS HBA; JBOD is not always JBOD

On Jan 9, 2009, at 9:28 AM, Erik Trimble wrote: > I'm pretty darned sure that the LSI 1068-based HBAs will do "true" > JBOD. Indeed they do, and the mpt driver works fine with these cards. /dale ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + EMC Cx310 Array (JBOD ? Or Singe MetaLUN ?)

On May 1, 2009, at 2:09 AM, Wilkinson, Alex wrote: 0n Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:11:55AM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Wilkinson, Alex wrote: I currently have a single 17TB MetaLUN that i am about to present to an OpenSolaris initiator and it will obviously be ZFS. H

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + EMC Cx310 Array (JBOD ? Or Singe MetaLUN ?)

On May 1, 2009, at 4:01 AM, Ian Collins wrote: Dale Ghent wrote: On May 1, 2009, at 2:09 AM, Wilkinson, Alex wrote: So, shall I forget ZFS and use UFS ? Not at all. Just export lots of LUNs from your EMC to get the IO scheduling win, not one giant one, and configure the zpool as a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Why is Solaris 10 ZFS performance so terrible?

On Sep 10, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Rich Morris wrote: On 07/28/09 17:13, Rich Morris wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Sun has opened internal CR 6859997. It is now in Dispatched state at High priority. CR 6859997 has recently been fixed in Nevada. This fix will al

Re: [zfs-discuss] Why is Solaris 10 ZFS performance so terrible?

On Sep 15, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Richard Elling wrote: On Sep 15, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Dale Ghent wrote: On Sep 10, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Rich Morris wrote: On 07/28/09 17:13, Rich Morris wrote: On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Sun has opened internal CR 6859997. It is now

Re: [zfs-discuss] Why is Solaris 10 ZFS performance so terrible?

On Sep 15, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Dale Ghent wrote: Question though... why is bug fix that can be a watershed for performance be held back for so long? s10u9 won't be available for at least 6 months from now, and with a huge environment, I try

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Thumper Origins Q

On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:19 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:46:11AM -0800, Moazam Raja wrote: Note that the 3511 is being replaced with the 6140: Which is MUCH nicer but also much pricier. Also, no non-RAID option. The 6140 is nicer in terms of performance. However if you

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Thumper Origins Q

On Jan 31, 2007, at 4:26 AM, Selim Daoud wrote: you can still do some lun masking at the HBA level (Solaris 10) this feature is call "blacklist" Oh, I'd do that but Solaris isn't the only OS that uses arrays on my SAN, and other hosts even cross-departmental. Thus masking from the array is

Re: [zfs-discuss] snapdir visable recursively throughout a dataset

On Feb 5, 2007, at 7:57 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: I haven't tried it but what if you mounted ro via loopback into a zone /zones/myzone01/root/.zfs is loop mounted in RO to /zones/ myzone01/.zfs I've tried something similar but found out that vfstab is evaluated prior to zpool import, so

[zfs-discuss] Exporting zvol properties to .zfs

Here at my university, I recently started selling disk space to users from a server with 4.5TB of space. They purchase space and I make them their own volume, typically with compression on and it's then exported via NFS to their servers/workstations. So far this has gone quite well (with

Re: [zfs-discuss] Preferred backup mechanism for ZFS?

On Apr 18, 2007, at 4:53 PM, J.P. King wrote: http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/faqs/zfs.xml#q9 This says that networker should cope with ACLs RealSoonNow (mid 2006). It also says something which I didn't know, namely that sun's tar and cpio will cope with ACLs... I guess they have a pax

Re: [zfs-discuss] XServe Raid & Complex Storage Considerations

On Apr 25, 2007, at 11:17 AM, cedric briner wrote: hello the list, After reading the _excellent_ ZFS Best Practices Guide, I've seen in the section: ZFS and Complex Storage Consideration that we should configure the storage system to ignore command which will flush the memory into the dis

Re: [zfs-discuss] gzip compression throttles system?

On May 2, 2007, at 10:36 PM, Ian Collins wrote: The files are between 15 and 50MB. It's worth pointing out that .wav files only compress by a few percent. Not entirely related to your maxed CPU problem, but gzip on PCM audio isn't, as you point out, going to earn you much of a compress

[zfs-discuss] RAIDZn+1 (related to the h/w raid ponderings)

Dropping in on this convo a little late, but here's something that has been nagging me - gaining the ability to mirror two (or more) RAIDZ sets. A little background on why I'd really like to see this I have two data centers on my campus and my FC-based SAN stretches between them. Whe

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + ISCSI + LINUX QUESTIONS

On May 31, 2007, at 12:15 AM, Nathan Huisman wrote: = PROBLEM To create a disk storage system that will act as an archive point for user data (Non-recoverable data), and also act as a back end storage unit for virtual machines at a block level. Here are some tips from me. I notice you m

[zfs-discuss] Oracle DB giving zpools a wedgie

We ran into an interesting situation recently w.r.t. Oracle 9i and the zpool it lives on. Oracle is installed on (and has its tablespace on as well) a zpool which is comprised of two mirrored LUNs, and each LUN is from a separate 6140. We needed to do work on one of these 6140s and so I

[zfs-discuss] The Dangling DBuf Strikes Back

I saw a putback this past week from M. Maybee regarding this, but I thought I'd post here that I saw what is apparently an incarnation of 6569719 on a production box running s10u3 x86 w/ latest (on sunsolve) patches. I have 3 other servers configured the same way WRT work load, zfs pools

Re: [zfs-discuss] enterprise scale redundant Solaris 10/ZFS server providing NFSv4/CIFS

On Sep 24, 2007, at 6:15 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote: > Well, considering that some days we automatically create accounts for > thousands of students, I wouldn't want to be the one stuck typing 'zfs > create' a thousand times 8-/. And that still wouldn't resolve our > requirement for our help desk st

Re: [zfs-discuss] device alias

On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:21 PM, James C. McPherson wrote: > > That sounds like an ok RFE to me. > > For some of the arrays (eg HDS) that we come > into contact with, it's possible to decode the > device guid into something meaningful to a > human, but that's generally closed information. To me, this

Re: [zfs-discuss] device alias

On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > > The problem with this is that wrong information is much worse than no > information, there is no way to automatically validate the > information, > and therefore people are involved. If people were reliable, then even > a text file would wo

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS & array NVRAM cache?

On Sep 27, 2007, at 3:19 PM, Vincent Fox wrote: > So will this "nocache" option work in U4? Yes, it's in there: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/$ cat /etc/release Solaris 10 8/07 s10x_u4wos_12b X86 Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

On Oct 3, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Roch - PAE wrote: > If the DB cache is made large enough to consume most of memory, > the ZFS copy will quickly be evicted to stage other I/Os on > their way to the DB cache. > > What problem does that pose ? Personally, I'm still not completely sold on the performanc

Re: [zfs-discuss] Direct I/O ability with zfs?

On Oct 3, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > Slightly off-topic, in looking at some field data this morning > (looking > for something completely unrelated) I notice that the use of directio > on UFS is declining over time. I'm not sure what that means... > hopefully > not more perform

[zfs-discuss] ZFS for OSX - it'll be in there.

...and eventually in a read-write capacity: http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/04/apple-seeds-zfs-read-write- developer-preview-1-1-for-leopard/ Apple has seeded version 1.1 of ZFS (Zettabyte File System) for Mac OS X to Developers this week. The preview updates a previous build released on Ju

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz and compression, difficulties

On Jan 26, 2008, at 3:24 AM, Joachim Pihl wrote: > So far so good, "zfs get all" reports compression to be active. Now > for > the problem: After adding another 300GB of uncompressed .tif > and .bin/.cue > (audio CD) files, compression ratio is still at 1.00, indicating > that no > compressi

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZIL controls in Solaris 10 U4?

On Jan 30, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Vincent Fox wrote: > What we ended up doing, for political reasons, was putting the > squeeze on our Sun reps and getting a 10u4 kernel spin patch with... > what did they call it? Oh yeah "a big wad of ZFS fixes". So this > ends up being a hug PITA because for

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS replication strategies

On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Vincent Fox wrote: > Ideally I'd love it if ZFS directly supported the idea of rolling > snapshots out into slower secondary storage disks on the SAN, but in > the meanwhile looks like we have to roll our own solutions. If you're running some recent SXCE build, you

Re: [zfs-discuss] List of ZFS patches to be released with Solaris 10 U5

On Mar 4, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Ben Grele wrote: > Experts, > Do you know where I could find the list of all the ZFS patches that > will > be released with Solaris 10 U5? My customer told me that they've seen > such list for prior update releases. I've not been able to find > anything > like it in

Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance

Have you turned on the "Ignore cache flush commands" option on the xraids? You should ensure this is on when using ZFS on them. /dale On Mar 27, 2008, at 6:16 PM, abs wrote: > hello all, > i have two xraids connect via fibre to a poweredge2950. the 2 > xraids are configured with 2 raid5 vo

Re: [zfs-discuss] mirroring zfs slice

On Jun 17, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Srinivas Chadalavada wrote: > :root # zpool create export mirror c2t0d0s5 c2t0d0s5 > invalid vdev specification > use '-f' to override the following errors: > /dev/dsk/c2t0d0s5 is part of active ZFS pool export. Please see > zpool(1M). (I presume that you meant to

Re: [zfs-discuss] mirroring zfs slice

On Jun 17, 2008, at 1:13 PM, dick hoogendijk wrote: > This is about slices. Can this be done for a whole disk too? And it > yes, do these disks have to be exactly the same size? Indeed, it can be used on an entire disk. Examples: zpool create mypool c1t0d0 zpool attach mypool c1t0d0 c2t

Re: [zfs-discuss] 2 items on the wish list

On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Mertol Ozyoney wrote: > Hi all ; > > There are two tinhs that some customers are asking for constantly > about ZFS. > > Ability to mount snap shots somewhere else. [this doesnt look easy, > perhaps a proxy kind of set up ? This feature has been in ZFS since day 1.

Re: [zfs-discuss] 2 items on the wish list

o the other server via NFS. /dale On Jun 27, 2008, at 7:02 PM, Dale Ghent wrote: > On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:58 PM, Mertol Ozyoney wrote: > >> Hi all ; >> >> There are two tinhs that some customers are asking for constantly >> about ZFS. >> >> Ability t

Re: [zfs-discuss] X4540

On Jul 11, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > > Yes, of course. But there is only one CF slot. Cool coincidence that the following article on CF cards and DMA transfers was posted to /. http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/12/1851251 I take it that Sun's going ship/sell O

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS questions

On Jun 16, 2006, at 11:40 PM, Richard Elling wrote: Kimberly Chang wrote: A couple of ZFS questions: 1. ZFS dynamic striping will automatically use new added devices when there are write requests. Customer has a *mostly read-only* application with I/O bottleneck, they wonder if there is a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Priorities

On Jun 23, 2006, at 1:09 PM, eric kustarz wrote: How about it folks - would it be a good idea for me to explore what it takes to get such a bug/RFE setup implemented for the ZFS community on OpenSolaris.org? what's wrong with http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/index.jsp for findin

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS and Storage

Gregory Shaw wrote: Yes, but the idea of using software raid on a large server doesn't make sense in modern systems. If you've got a large database server that runs a large oracle instance, using CPU cycles for RAID is counter productive. Add to that the need to manage the hardware directly (

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Storage

Torrey McMahon wrote: ZFS is greatfor the systems that can run it. However, any enterprise datacenter is going to be made up of many many hosts running many many OS. In that world you're going to consolidate on large arrays and use the features of those arrays where they cover the most gro

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS components for a minimal Solaris 10 U2 install?

On Jun 28, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Jim Connors wrote: For an embedded application, I'm looking at creating a minimal Solaris 10 U2 image which would include ZFS functionality. In quickly taking a look at the opensolaris.org site under pkgdefs, I see three packages that appear to be related to ZF

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS needs a viable backup mechanism

On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Bill Moore wrote: That said, we actually did talk to a lot of customers during the development of ZFS. The overwhelming majority of them had a backup scheme that did not involve ufsdump. I know there are folks that live and die by ufsdump, but most customers have ot

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS needs a viable backup mechanism

On Jul 9, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Richard Elling wrote: I'll call your bluff. Is a zpool create any different for backup than the original creation? Neither ufsdump nor tar-like programs do a mkfs or tunefs. In those cases, the sys admin still has to create the file system using whatever volume ma

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS needs a viable backup mechanism

On Jul 9, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Richard Elling wrote: Ok, so I only managed data centers for 10 years. I can count on 2 fingers the times this was useful to me. It is becoming less useful over time unless your recovery disk is exactly identical to the lost disk. This may sound easy, but it isn'

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vs. Apple XRaid

On Jul 31, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Jan Schaumann wrote: Hello all, After setting up a Solaris 10 machine with ZFS as the new NFS server, I'm stumped by some serious performance problems. Here are the (admittedly long) details (also noted at http://www.netmeister.org/blog/): The machine in question

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vs. Apple XRaid

On Jul 31, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Rich Teer wrote: On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Dale Ghent wrote: So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x really screwed up in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS server that the Linux has had, uhhmmm (struggling to be nice), iffy

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS vs. Apple XRaid

On Jul 31, 2006, at 8:07 PM, eric kustarz wrote: The 2.6.x Linux client is much nicer... one thing fixed was the client doing too many commits (which translates to fsyncs on the server). I would still recommend the Solaris client but i'm sure that's no surprise. But if you'r'e stuck on

Re: [zfs-discuss] SATA hot plug correction

On Sep 9, 2006, at 12:04 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: Thanks, that seems fairly clear. So another approach I could take is to buy one of the supported controllers, if they're available on a card I could plug in. The Silicon Image chipset is pretty popular and can be found on many SATA and e

[zfs-discuss] For those looking for an SATA add-on card...

I have success with one made by SIIG: http://elektronkind.org/2006/09/siig-esata-ii-pcie-card-and-opensolaris /dale ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs share=".foo-internal.bar.edu" on multiple interfaces?

On Sep 11, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Luke Scharf wrote: Luke Scharf wrote: zfs set sharenfs='rw=.foo-internal.bar.edu insecure no_root_squash' xr7/group/ntnt ; zfs share -a Also, is this the proper syntax for the no_root_squash? no_root_squash is a Linux-ism. What you're looking for in Solaris

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS imported simultanously on 2 systems...

James C. McPherson wrote: As I understand things, SunCluster 3.2 is expected to have support for HA-ZFS and until that version is released you will not be running in a supported configuration and so any errors you encounter are *your fault alone*. Still, after reading Mathias's descriptio

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS imported simultanously on 2 systems...

On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Eric Schrock wrote: Storing the hostid as a last-ditch check for administrative error is a reasonable RFE - just one that we haven't yet gotten around to. Claiming that it will solve the clustering problem oversimplifies the problem and will lead to people who think

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS imported simultanously on 2 systems...

On Sep 13, 2006, at 1:37 PM, Darren J Moffat wrote: That might be acceptable in some environments but that is going to cause disks to spin up. That will be very unacceptable in a laptop and maybe even in some energy conscious data centres. Introduce an option to 'zpool create'? Come to th

Re: [zfs-discuss] jbod questions

On Oct 3, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Keith Clay wrote: Folks, Would it be wise to buy 2 jbod box and place one side of the mirror on each one? Would that make sense? Of course that makes sense. Doing so will give you chassis-level redundancy. If one JBOD were to, say, lose power or in some way

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox

On Oct 11, 2006, at 10:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So are there any pci-e SATA cards that are supported ? I was hoping to go with a sempron64. Using old-pci seems like a waste. Yes. I wrote up a little review of the SIIG SC-SAE412-S1 card which is a two port PCIe card based on the Sili

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox

On Oct 11, 2006, at 7:36 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: I've been running Linux since kernel 0.99pl13, I think it was, and have had amazingly little trouble. Whereas I'm now sitting on $2k of hardware that won't do what I wanted it to do under Solaris, so it's a bit of a hot-button issue for me r

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox

On Oct 12, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Frank Cusack wrote: On October 11, 2006 11:14:59 PM -0400 Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Today, in 2006 - much different story. I even had Linux AND Solaris problems with my machine's MCP51 chipset when it first came out. Both forcedeth and nge

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS patches for S10 6/06

On Oct 5, 2006, at 2:28 AM, George Wilson wrote: Andreas, The first ZFS patch will be released in the upcoming weeks. For now, the latest available bits are the ones from s10 6/06. George, will there at least be a T patch available? I'm anxious for these because my ZFS-backed NFS server ju

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Usability issue : improve means of finding ZFS<->physdevice(s) mapping

On Oct 13, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Bruce Chapman wrote: ZFS is supposed to be much easier to use than UFS. For creating a filesystem, I agree it is, as I could do that easily without a man page. However, I found it rather surprising that I could not see the physical device(s) a zfs filesystem w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox

On Oct 17, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Richard Elling - PAE wrote: The realities of the hardware world strike again. Sun does use the Siig SATA chips in some products, Marvell in others, and NVidia MCPs in others. The difference is in who writes the drivers. NVidia, for example, has a history of deve

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS RAID-10

On Oct 22, 2006, at 9:57 PM, Al Hopper wrote: On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Stephen Le wrote: Is it possible to construct a RAID-10 array with ZFS? I've read through the ZFS documentation, and it appears that the only way to create a RAID-10 array would be to create two mirrored (RAID-1) emulated v

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mirrored Raidz

On Oct 24, 2006, at 4:56 AM, Michel Kintz wrote: It is not always a matter of more redundancy. In my customer's case, they have storage in 2 different rooms of their datacenter and want to mirror from one storage unit in one room to the other. So having in this case a combination of RAID-Z +

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Mirrored Raidz

On Oct 24, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: On October 24, 2006 9:19:07 AM -0700 "Anton B. Rang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Our thinking is that if you want more redundancy than RAID-Z, you should use RAID-Z with double parity, which provides more reliability and more usable storage

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Mirrored Raidz

On Oct 24, 2006, at 2:46 PM, Richard Elling - PAE wrote: Pedantic question, what would this gain us other than better data retention? Space and (especially?) performance would be worse with RAID-Z+1 than 2-way mirrors. You answered your own question, it would gain the user better data retent

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Mirrored Raidz

On Oct 24, 2006, at 3:23 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: says a raid-z vdev has the read throughput of 1 drive for random reads. Compared to #drives for a stripe. That's pretty significant. Okay, then if the person can stand to lose even more spac

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS related kernel panic

Matthew Ahrens wrote: Jason J. W. Williams wrote: Hi all, Having experienced this, it would be nice if there was an option to offline the filesystem instead of kernel panicking on a per-zpool basis. If its a system-critical partition like a database I'd prefer it to kernel-panick and thereby tr

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS related kernel panic

Richard Elling wrote: Actually, it would be interesting to see how many customers change the onerror setting. We have some data, just need more days in the hour. I'm pretty sure you'd find that info in over 6 years of submitted Explorer output :) I imagine that stuff is sandboxed away in a

[zfs-discuss] System pause peculiarity with mysql on zfs

Hey all, I run a netra X1 as the mysql db server for my small personal web site. This X1 has two drives in it with SVM-mirrored UFS slices for / and /var, a swap slice, and slice 7 is zfs. There is one zfs mirror pool called "local" on which there are a few file systems, one of which is f

Re: [zfs-discuss] System pause peculiarity with mysql on zfs

On Dec 7, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote: Hi Dale, Are you using MyISAM or InnoDB? InnoDB. Also, what's your zpool configuration? A basic mirror: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>zpool status pool: local state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAME STATE READ W

Re: [zfs-discuss] System pause peculiarity with mysql on zfs

On Dec 7, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Nicholas Senedzuk wrote: You said you are running Solaris 10 FCS but zfs was not released until Solaris 10 6/06 which is Solaris 10U2. Look at a Solaris 10 6/06 CD/DVD. Check out the Solaris_10/ UpgradePatches directory. ah! well whaddya know... Yes, apply thos

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: System pause peculiarity with mysql on zfs

On Dec 7, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Anton B. Rang wrote: This does look like the ATA driver bug rather than a ZFS issue per se. Yes indeed. Well, that answers that. FWIW, I'm hour 2 of a mysql configure script run. Yow! (For the curious, the reason ZFS triggers this when UFS doesn't is because Z