[zfs-discuss] New system, Help needed!

I am a newbie on Solaris. We recently purchased a Sun Sparc M3000 server. It comes with 2 identical hard drives. I want to setup a raid 1. After searching on google, I found that the hardware raid was not working with M3000. So I am here to look for help on how to setup ZFS to use raid 1. Curre

Re: [zfs-discuss] New system, Help needed!

Thank you all for your help. Have a nice day! -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] CR 6880994 and pkg fix

Can anyone say what the status of CR 6880994 (kernel/zfs Checksum failures on mirrored drives) might be? Setting copies=2 has mitigated the problem, which manifests itself consistently at boot by flagging libdlpi.so.1, but two recent power cycles in a row with no normal shutdown has resulted in

Re: [zfs-discuss] CR 6880994 and pkg fix

On 03/15/10 01:01 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: This sounds really bizarre. Yes, it is. ButCR 6880994 is bizarre too. One detail suggestion on checking what's going on (since I don't have a clue towards a real root-cause determination): Get an md5sum on a clean copy of the file, say from a n

Re: [zfs-discuss] CR 6880994 and pkg fix

the post wasn't really to diagnose the hardware but to ask about the behavior of ZFS under certain error conditions. Frank reports that he sees this on the same file, /lib/libdlpi.so.1, so I'll go out on a limb and speculate that there is something in the bit pattern for that

[zfs-discuss] ZFS on Advanced format (4kb sector) drives

Is there any action required to make ZFS properly align itself when using advanced format drives such as the newer WD Green drives? I prefer to use them by dedicating the whole disk to zfs, rather than using slices, although I would assume if I used a slice I could manually align it. Thanks muc

Re: [zfs-discuss] CR 6880994 and pkg fix

in 1uS, wait 40mS and then read another 8 copies in 1uS again? I doubt it :-). I bet it took > 1uS just to (mis)calculate the checksum (1.6GHz 16 bit cpu). Thanks -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] ZFS and 4kb sector Drives (All new western digital GREEN Drives?)

Does zfs handle 4kb sectors properly or does it always assume 512b sectors? If it does, we could manually create a slice properly aligned and set zfs to use it... -- The sender of this email subscribes to Perimeter E-Security's email anti-virus service. This email has been scanned for mal

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and 4kb sector Drives (All new western digital GREEN Drives?)

Awesome! Just when I thought zfs couldn’t get any better... -Original Message- From: larry@sun.com [mailto:larry@sun.com] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 11:58 AM To: Bottone, Frank Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and 4kb sector Drives (All new

[zfs-discuss] zpool split problem?

Reboot c0t1d0s0 - no problem (no spool) Reboot c0t0d0s0 - no problem (no rpool) The workaround seems to be to export rpool the first time you boot c0t0d0s0. No big deal but it's a bit scary when it happens. Has this been fixed in a later release? Thanks -- Frank __

Re: [zfs-discuss] CR 6880994 and pkg fix

lem as you have long suggested it might be. So: that the file is still readable is a mystery, but how it became to be flagged as bad in ZFS isn't, any more. Cheers -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.ope

[zfs-discuss] How to destroy iscsi dataset?

Our backup system has a couple of datasets used for iscsi that have somehow lost their baseline snapshots with the live system. In fact zfs list -t snapshots doesn't show any snapshots at all for them. We rotate backup and live every now and then, so these datasets have been shared at some time.

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool split problem?

On 03/31/10 12:21 PM, lori.alt wrote: The problem with splitting a root pool goes beyond the issue of the zpool.cache file. If you look at the comments for 6939334 , you will see other files whose content is not correct when a root pool is renam

Re: [zfs-discuss] Diagnosing Permanent Errors

org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=423770 http://www.cs.toronto.edu/%7Ebianca/papers/sigmetrics09.pdf Cheers -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS RaidZ recommendation

X 7 RaidZ2 configuration and see what the performance is like. I have a fews days of grace before i need to have this server ready for duty. Just curious, what are you planning to boot from? AFAIK you can't boot ZFS from anything much more complicated than a mirror.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Making an rpool smaller?

ause it will likely be incorrect on the ssd after recv'ing the snapshot. HTH -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Making an rpool smaller?

On 04/16/10 08:57 PM, Frank Middleton wrote: AFAIK the "official" syntax for installing the MBR is # installboot -F zfs /usr/platform/`uname -i`/lib/fs/zfs/bootblk /dev/rdsk/ Sorry, that's for SPARC. You had the installgrub

Re: [zfs-discuss] Making an rpool smaller?

do with living with different names. Makes it easier to recv snapshots from different hosts and architectures, too. I'll try out a few variations on a VM and see how it goes. You'll need to do the zfs create with legacy mount option, and set the bootfs property. Otherwise it looks lik

[zfs-discuss] can't destroy snapshot (continue)

1 -> kmem_free 1-> kmem_cache_free 1<- kmem_cache_free 0 1 <- kmem_free 0 1<- dmu_tx_commit 0 1-> txg_wait_synced 1 -&g

Re: [zfs-discuss] SSD best practices

On 04/20/10 11:06 AM, Don wrote: Who else, besides STEC, is making write optimized drives and what kind of IOP performance can be expected? Just got a distributor email about Texas Memory Systems' RamSan-630, one of a range of huge non-volatile SAN products they make. Other than that this has

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sharing with zfs

so it night be worth trying again when we eventually get to go past b134. HTH -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Oracle to no longer support ZFS on OpenSolaris?

less more expansive interpretation that covered just about any form of software distribution. I'm no supporter of Oracle's business practices, but I am 90% sure that Sleepycat changed their license before the Oracle acquisition. Yes, it was particularly onerous before they went to s

[zfs-discuss] zfs/lofi/share panic

Many many moons ago, I submitted a CR into bugs about a highly reproducible panic that occurs if you try to re-share a lofi mounted image. That CR has AFAIK long since disappeared - I even forget what it was called. This server is used for doing network installs. Let's say you have a 64 bit iso

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs/lofi/share panic

ill happens, update and reopen CR6798273, although it doesn't seem very important now. Regards -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Zfs mirror boot hang at boot

oting problem. If that's right, then that is the expected behavior. "zpool detach" causes zfs to forget everything it knows about the device being detached. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] SMI lable and EFI label in one disk?

chard says this is a limitation of the installer. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] one more time: pool size changes

;t make my Netapp/zfs decision based on that (alone). -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] one more time: pool size changes

On 6/2/10 11:10 PM -0400 Roman Naumenko wrote: Well, I explained it not very clearly. I meant the size of a raidz array can't be changed. For sure zpool add can do the job with a pool. Not with a raidz configuration. Well in that case it's invalid to compare against Netapp since they can't do i

Re: [zfs-discuss] one more time: pool size changes

On 6/3/10 8:45 AM +0200 Juergen Nickelsen wrote: Richard Elling writes: And some time before I had suggested to a my buddy zfs for his new home storage server, but he turned it down since there is no expansion available for a pool. Heck, let him buy a NetApp :-) Definitely a possibility, g

Re: [zfs-discuss] one more time: pool size changes

On 6/3/10 12:06 AM -0400 Roman Naumenko wrote: I think there is a difference. Just quickly checked netapp site: Adding new disks to a RAID group If a volume has more than one RAID group, you can specify the RAID group to which you are adding disks. hmm that's a surprising feature to me. I rem

Re: [zfs-discuss] Migrating to ZFS

On 6/4/10 11:46 AM -0700 Brandon High wrote: Be aware that Solaris on x86 has two types of partitions. There are fdisk partitions (c0t0d0p1, etc) which is what gparted, windows and other tools will see. There are also Solaris partitions or slices (c0t0d0s0). You can create or edit these with the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Please trim posts

On 6/10/10 11:07 PM -0700 Dave Koelmeyer wrote: I trimmed, and then got complained at by a mailing list user that the context of what I was replying to was missing. Can't win :P There's a big difference between trim and remove. The worst is when people quote 3-4 paragraphs, respond inline to O

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool export / import discrepancy

> > > Is ZFS dependent on the order of the drives? Will this cause any issue > down the road? Thank you all; > > Scott > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] mount zfs boot disk on another server?

Should naming the root pool something unique (rpool-nodename) be a best practice? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool - label missing on invalid

On 6/18/10 9:46 PM -0700 Cott Lang wrote: I split a mirror to reconfigure and recopy it. I detached one drive, reconfigured it ... all after unplugging the remaining pool drive during a shutdown to verify no accidents could happen. By detach, do you mean that you ran 'zpool detach'? ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool - label missing on invalid

;zpool split'. Otherwise, shut down as normal (ie, don't tell zfs you are about to do anything different) and then just boot with the one disk, now in degraded state but otherwise ok. Like you, I learned this the hard way! -frank ___ z

Re: [zfs-discuss] OCZ Vertex 2 Pro performance numbers

On 6/26/10 9:47 AM -0400 David Magda wrote: Crickey. Who's the genius who thinks of these URLs? SEOs ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] resilver of older root pool disk

-- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...

On 7/15/10 9:49 AM +0900 BM wrote: On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Paul B. Henson wrote: ZFS is great. It's pretty much the only reason we're running Solaris. Well, if this is the the only reason, then run FreeBSD instead. I run Solaris because of the kernel architecture and other things tha

Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...

On 7/16/10 12:02 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: It would be nice to have applications request to be notified before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested notification have acknowledged that they're ready, the snapshot would be taken; and then another notification sent that it was t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...

On 7/16/10 3:07 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On Fri, July 16, 2010 14:07, Frank Cusack wrote: On 7/16/10 12:02 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: It would be nice to have applications request to be notified before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested notification have

Re: [zfs-discuss] Who owns the dataset?

On 7/16/10 4:33 PM -0700 Johnson Earls wrote: On 07/16/10 10:30 AM, Lori Alt wrote: You can also run through the zones, doing 'zoneconfig -z info' commands to look for datasets delegated to each zone. That's not necessarily the current owner though, is it?

Re: [zfs-discuss] carrying on [was: Legality and the future of zfs...]

On 07/19/10 07:26, Andrej Podzimek wrote: I run ArchLinux with Btrfs and OpenSolaris with ZFS. I haven't had a serious issue with any of them so far. Moblin/Meego ships with btrfs by default. COW file system on a cell phone :-). Unsurprisingly for a read-mostly file system it seems pretty stab

Re: [zfs-discuss] Move Fedora or Windows disk image to ZFS (iScsi Boot)

example on how to do this. Making the new drive bootable is the real problem since it will probably not have the same identifier. For sure you'd have to edit grub ion the new drive and perhaps run grub interactively to install a boot loader. Hope this helps -- Frank __

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/13/10 3:39 PM -0500 Tim Cook wrote: Quite frankly, I think there will be an even faster decline of Solaris installed base after this move. I know I have no interest in pushing it anywhere after this mess. I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris. __

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

l swing things around regardless of what mega-corp does or doesn't do... Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting and why should Oracle en

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

On 8/13/10 8:56 PM -0600 Eric D. Mudama wrote: On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote: Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting and why should Oracle enable them to build a busines

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/13/10 11:21 PM -0400 Edward Ned Harvey wrote: From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris. What rock do you live under? Very few people would bother p

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On 8/14/10 7:58 AM -0500 Russ Price wrote: My guess is that the theoretical Solaris Express 11 will be crippled by any or all of: missing features, artificial limits on functionality, or a restrictive license. I consider the latter most likely, much like the OTN On 8/14/10 3:15 PM -0400 Dave Po

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

On 8/15/10 12:39 AM +0100 Kevin Walker wrote: and Oracle are very, very greedy... Let's not get all soft about OpenSolaris now ... all public companies are very, very greedy. They exist solely to make money. It's awesome that they make things that are useful, but it's just a way to meet the m

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors

On 8/14/10 10:18 PM -0700 Richard Elling wrote: On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting and why should Oracle enable them to build a b

Re: [zfs-discuss] Which directories must be part of rpool?

On 09/26/09 12:11 PM, Toby Thain wrote: Yes, but unless they fixed it recently (>=RHFC11), Linux doesn't actually nuke /tmp, which seems to be mapped to disk. One side effect is that (like MSWindows) AFAIK there isn't a native tmpfs, ... Are you sure about that? My Linux systems do. http://lx

Re: [zfs-discuss] Which directories must be part of rpool?

ng it! Cheers -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Which directories must be part of rpool?

news is that /var/tmp and /var/run may officially be mapped to tmpfs according to the bigadmin article. So the OP should now have a very good feel for what is safe to move to a data pool. This has been an interesting thread, especially relevant in these days of SSDs just becoming aff

Re: [zfs-discuss] Which directories must be part of rpool?

ce compile times. You bet! Provided the compiler doesn't use /var/tmp as IIRC early versions of gcc once did... -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] Fixing Wikipedia tmpfs article (was Re: Which directories must be part of rpool?)

On 09/27/09 11:25 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Frank Middleton wrote: Could you fix the Wikipedia article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMPFS "it first appeared in SunOS 4.1, released in March 1990" It appeared with SunOS-4.0. The official release was probably Februars 1987, but

Re: [zfs-discuss] OS install question

a problem using slices for different zpools, in fact it insists on using a slice for the root pool. Cheers -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Fixing Wikipedia tmpfs article (was Re: Which directories must be part of rpool?)

ot;. It has no historical section at all... There is no fbk (file system) page. Cheers -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] OS install question

if you don't, you'll never get back all the space. Been there, done that... Cheers -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Would ZFS work for a high-bandwidth video SAN?

space as reported by zfs. Can't speak to the 12-way mirror idea, but if you go this route you might keep some slices for rpool backups. I have found having a disk with such a backup invaluable... How do you plan to do backups in general? Cheers -- Frank __

Re: [zfs-discuss] Would ZFS work for a high-bandwidth video SAN?

pool was recovered from a baseline snapshot several times onto a 20GB disk until I figured out empirically that 8GB of free space was required for the image-update. I really doubt your mileage will vary. Prudence says that 32GB is much safer... Cheers -- Frank __

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best way to convert checksums

nd this is a complicated way of working around a design inconsistency. But maybe I missed something :-) So what would the semantics of the new "p" flag be for non-recursive incremental streams? Thanks -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-dis

[zfs-discuss] MPT questions

gh I'd ask before forking out for a SATA DVD drive - just hate to put perfectly good drives out for recycling. Maybe someone can recommend a writable BlueRay SAS drive that is known to work with the MPT driver instead... Thanks -- Frank ___ zfs-di

[zfs-discuss] iscsi/comstar performance

cause. Is anyone willing to speculate? Thanks -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] ZFS disk failure question

So, my Areca controller has been complaining via email of read errors for a couple days on SATA channel 8. The disk finally gave up last night at 17:40. I got to say I really appreciate the Areca controller taking such good care of me. For some reason, I wasn't able to log into the server las

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS disk failure question

k first. It depends >> on the hardware. >> >> 2. Tell ZFS that you replaced it. >> >> # zpool replace tank c8t7d0 >> >> 3. Detach the spare. >> >> # zpool detach tank c8t11d0 >> >> 4. Clear the pool or the device specifically. >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS disk failure question

X read errors in Y minutes", Then we can really see what happened. Jason On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Eric Schrock wrote: > On 10/14/09 14:26, Jason Frank wrote: >> >> Thank you, that did the trick.  That's not terribly obvious from the >> man page though.  The man

Re: [zfs-discuss] primarycache and secondarycache properties on Solaris 10 u8

oint? It's enough to make your head spin :-) -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mount ZFS on Dual Boot Machine (open)solaris

On 10/15/09 20:36, Cameron Jones wrote: My question is tho, since I can boot into either OpenSolaris or Solaris (but not both at the same time obviousvly :) i'd like to be able to mount the other disks into whatever host OS i boot into. Is this possible& recommended? Definitely possible. W

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mount ZFS on Dual Boot Machine (open)solaris

her host with an otherwise identical configuration, it will try (and correctly fail) to mount a zombie data pool when you boot it. I assume the id is ignored on the root pool at boot time or it wouldn't be able to boot at all. Undoubtedly a guru w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Mount ZFS on Dual Boot Machine (open)solaris

ne of the many nice things about ZFS is that it is so logically consistent. I'd never want to go back! Cheers -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] fishworks on x4275?

Apologies if this has been covered before, I couldn't find anything in my searching. Can the software which runs on the 7000 series servers be installed on an x4275? -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org

Re: [zfs-discuss] fishworks on x4275?

On October 16, 2009 1:08:17 PM -0500 Tim Cook wrote: On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: Can the software which runs on the 7000 series servers be installed on an x4275? Fishworks can only be run on systems purchased as a 7000 series, Sun will not support it on anything

Re: [zfs-discuss] iscsi/comstar performance

like a great idea, so simple to maintain and robust, but COMSTAR seems to have sand-bagged it a bit. The performance was quite acceptable before but it is pretty much unusable this way. Any ideas would be much appreciated Thanks -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] fishworks on x4275?

On October 19, 2009 9:53:14 AM +1300 Trevor Pretty wrote: Frank I've been looking into:- http://www.nexenta.com/corp/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection &id=4&Itemid=128 Thanks! I *thought* there was a Nexenta solution but a google search didn't turn any

[zfs-discuss] raidz "ZFS Best Practices" wiki inconsistency

phasize the inconsistency on the wiki and suggest that it be updated or a comment added. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS disk failure question

vide details when they are available. > > Thanks, > > Cindy > > On 10/14/09 15:54, Jason Frank wrote: >> >> See, I get overly literal when working on failed production storage >> (and yes, I do have backups...)  I wasn't wanting to cancel the >> in-progres

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks "fork"

size of the market for robust SOHO/Home file/media servers that no one seems to be addressing right now (well, Apple, maybe, although they are not explicit about it and they don't offer ZFS...). Cheers -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] dedupe question

any variables, but it would be so interesting to hear of possible decision making algorithms. A similar discussion applies to compression, although that seems to defeat redundancy more directly. This analysis requires good statistical maths skills! Thanks -- Frank ___

Re: [zfs-discuss] Fwd: The 100, 000th beginner question about a zfs server

SPoFS, and I doubt you'll ever find that on an HCL, which really serves a different purpose, IMO. Cheers -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] iscsi on 2 hosts for mutual backup

nt to use a raw backing store, yes? Performance is not a concern. If no one is throwing red flags yet, then to extend the idea further maybe I would move the redundant server offsite (I will have metro ethernet connectivity) and do iSCSI over the WAN and get DR for free. -frank

Re: [zfs-discuss] iscsi on 2 hosts for mutual backup

On December 16, 2009 9:37:08 AM -0800 Richard Elling wrote: On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:04 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: AVS can also be used. This one option on many of the ZFS appliances. I would like to but doesn't that require OpenSolaris? I'm scared to license the StorageTek version sin

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs hanging during reads

mat/ana on all new disks before putting them in service and I was wondering if that was a waste of time. Thanks -- Frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] raidz data loss stories?

The zfs best practices page (and all the experts in general) talk about MTTDL and raidz2 is better than raidz and so on. Has anyone here ever actually experienced data loss in a raidz that has a hot spare? Of course, I mean from disk failure, not from bugs or admin error, etc. -frank

Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz data loss stories?

both for performance and reliability. Would be good fodder for the best practices doc, if you have the math to back it up. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] preview of new SSD based on SandForce controller

apps are great though! AD is extremely impressive. It is easier to push a technology when you control it 100% (as opposed to kerberos on the unix side) but even taking that into account, it's quite the state of the art. But the underlying platform it runs o

[zfs-discuss] opensolaris lightweight install

and want to try opensolaris with the zfs/cifs stuff. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] PCI-E CF adapter?

lug type slot. I want to boot from CF and save all the drive slots for actual storage. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs fast mirror resync?

'). That's my experience. I wish zfs had that feature. Pretty sure (IIRC) SVM has it with offline/online. -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] Panic running a scrub

This is probably unreproducible, but I just got a panic whilst scrubbing a simple mirrored pool on scxe snv124. Evidently on of the disks went offline for some reason and shortly thereafter the panic happened. I have the dump and the /var/adm/messages containing the trace. Is there any point in

Re: [zfs-discuss] Panic running a scrub

On 01/19/10 02:37 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: I seem to recall that you are not using ECC memory. If so, maybe the panic is a good thing. This is on SPARC sun4u. Has ECC etc. I agree that without ECC all bets are off :-) Cheers -- Frank ___ zfs

Re: [zfs-discuss] Panic running a scrub

On 01/20/10 04:27 PM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Frank, I couldn't reproduce this problem on SXCE build 130 by failing a disk in mirrored pool and then immediately running a scrub on the pool. It works as expected. The disk has to fail whilst the scrub is running. It has happened twic

Re: [zfs-discuss] Panic running a scrub

On 01/20/10 05:55 PM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Frank, We need both files. The vmcore is 1.4GB. An http upload is never going to complete. Is there an ftp-able place to send it, or can you download it if I post it somewhere? Cheers -- Frank

Re: [zfs-discuss] Panic running a scrub

On 01/20/10 04:27 PM, Cindy Swearingen wrote: Hi Frank, I couldn't reproduce this problem on SXCE build 130 by failing a disk in mirrored pool and then immediately running a scrub on the pool. It works as expected. As noted, the disk mustn't go offline until well after the scrub h

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

to raidz3. Please explain. I don't understand how smaller devices gets you to raidz3. With smaller devices, you probably have less need for raidz3 as you have more redundancy? It's the larger drives that forces you to add more parity. -frank __

[zfs-discuss] nfs mounts don't follow child filesystems?

8. thanks -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] zpool status -x not as documented

pool 'rpool' is healthy -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

On January 23, 2010 5:17:16 PM -0600 Tim Cook wrote: Smaller devices get you to raid-z3 because they cost less money. Therefore, you can afford to buy more of them. I sure hope you aren't ever buying for my company! :) :) Smaller devices cost more $/GB; ie they are more expensive. -

Re: [zfs-discuss] Best 1.5TB drives for consumer RAID?

On January 23, 2010 1:20:13 PM -0800 Richard Elling My theory is that drives cost $100. Obviously you're not talking about Sun drives. :) -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/lis

Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs mounts don't follow child filesystems?

On January 23, 2010 2:17:12 PM -0600 Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Frank Cusack wrote: I thought with NFS4 *on solaris* that clients would follow the zfs filesystem hierarchy and mount sub-filesystems. That doesn't seem to be happening and I can't find any documenta

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >