On Opensolaris build 134, upgraded from older versions, I have an rpool for
which I had switch on dedup for a few weeks.
After that I switched to back on.
Now it seems the dedup ratio is stuck at a value of 1.68.
Even when I copy more then 90 GB of data it still remains at 1.68.
Any ideas ?
On 16 mrt 2010, at 19:48, valrh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it could just be a coincidence. That is,
> perhaps the data that you copied happens to lead to a dedup ratio relative to
> the data that's already on there. You could test this out by copying a few
> gig
On 16 mrt 2010, at 19:48, valrh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it could just be a coincidence. That is,
> perhaps the data that you copied happens to lead to a dedup ratio relative to
> the data that's already on there. You could test this out by copying a few
> gig
On 17 mrt 2010, at 10:56, zfs ml wrote:
> On 3/17/10 1:21 AM, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
>>
>> On 16 mrt 2010, at 19:48, valrh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it could just be a coincidence. That
>>> is, perhaps the dat
On 18 mrt 2010, at 10:07, Henrik Johansson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 17 mar 2010, at 16.22, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16 mrt 2010, at 19:48, valrh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it could just be a coincide
I cannot find the answer in the on disk specification or anywhere else.
Are the vdev in a mirror block by block copies ? I mean is block 10013223
on on device the same as block 10013223 on the other devices in a mirror vdev.
Off course only after that block has ever been used by zfs, I know blocks
I moved some disk around on my Openindiana system and now the names that are
shown by zpool status no longer
match the names format shows:
$ zpool status
pool: datapool
state: ONLINE
scan: scrub repaired 0 in 7h58m with 0 errors on Wed Oct 3 01:13:47 2012
config:
NAMESTATE
On 14 Oct 2012, at 20:56 , "Edward Ned Harvey
(opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris)"
wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul van der Zwan
>>
>> What was c5t2 is now
On 11 jun 2009, at 10:48, Jerry K wrote:
There is a pretty active apple ZFS sourceforge group that provides
RW bits for 10.5.
Things are oddly quiet concerning 10.6. I am curious about how this
will turn out myself.
Jerry
Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the
On 11 jun 2009, at 11:48, Sami Ketola wrote:
On 11 Jun 2009, at 12:44, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the disk
usage of Snow Leopard
is 6 GB less than Leopard mostly because of compression.
Either they have implemented compressed
I'm testing an X4500 where we need to send over 600MB/s over the
network.
This is no problem, I get about 700MB/s over a single 10G interface.
Problem is the box also needs to accept incoming data at 100MB/s.
If I do a simple test ftp-ing files into the same filesystem I see
the FTP being limite
On 25 Jun 2007, at 14:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm testing an X4500 where we need to send over 600MB/s over the
network.
This is no problem, I get about 700MB/s over a single 10G interface.
Problem is the box also needs to accept incoming data at 100MB/s.
If I do a simple test ftp-ing fil
On 25 Jun 2007, at 14:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25 Jun 2007, at 14:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm testing an X4500 where we need to send over 600MB/s over the
network.
This is no problem, I get about 700MB/s over a single 10G
interface.
Problem is the box also needs to accept
On 17 Dec 2007, at 11:42, Jeff Bonwick wrote:
> In short, yes. The enabling technology for all of this is something
> we call bp rewrite -- that is, the ability to rewrite an existing
> block pointer (bp) to a new location. Since ZFS is COW, this would
> be trivial in the absence of snapshots -
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Cyril Plisko wrote:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/zfs-discuss/2540-zfs-performance.pdf
> >
> > Nov 26, 2008 ??? May I borrow your time machine ? ;-)
>
> Are there any stock prices you would like to know about? Perhaps you
>
> are inter
On 7 Nov 2006, at 21:02, Michael Schuster wrote:
listman wrote:
hi, i found a comment comparing linux and solaris but wasn't sure
which version of solaris was being referred. can the list confirm
that this issue isn't a problem with solaris10/zfs??
"Linux also supports asynchronous director
On 8 Nov 2006, at 16:16, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Paul,
Wednesday, November 8, 2006, 3:23:35 PM, you wrote:
PvdZ> On 7 Nov 2006, at 21:02, Michael Schuster wrote:
listman wrote:
hi, i found a comment comparing linux and solaris but wasn't sure
which version of solaris was being referr
On 9-mei-2006, at 11:35, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff Bonwick wrote:
I personally hate this device naming semantic (/dev/rdsk/c-t-d
not meaning what you'd logically expect it to). (It's a generic
Solaris bug, not a ZFS thing.) I'll see
18 matches
Mail list logo
