Re: [zfs-discuss] Hardware for high-end ZFS NAS file server - 2010 March edition

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Dan Dascalescu < bigbang7+opensola...@gmail.com > wrote: > Thanks for your suggestions. > > In the meantime I had found this case and PSU - what do folks think? > > Antec Twelve Hundred Gaming Case - > http://wiki.dandascalescu.com/reviews/gadgets/computers/cases#An

Re: [zfs-discuss] Does OpenSolaris mpt driver support LSI 2008 controller

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 3:12 AM, James C. McPherson wrote: > On 7/03/10 12:28 PM, norm.tallant wrote: > >> I'm about to try it! My LSI SAS 9211-8i should arrive Monday or >> Tuesday. I bought the cable-less version, opting instead to save a few >> $ and buy Adaptec 2247000-R SAS to SATA cables.

Re: [zfs-discuss] getting drive serial number

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Ethan wrote: > I have a failing drive, and no way to correlate the device with errors in > the zpool status with an actual physical drive. > If I could get the device's serial number, I could use that as it's printed > on the drive. > I come from linux, so I tried

Re: [zfs-discuss] getting drive serial number

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Ethan wrote: > > > >> I have a failing drive, and no way to correlate the device with errors > >> in > >> the zpool status with an actual physical drive. > >> If I could get the device's serial number, I

Re: [zfs-discuss] getting drive serial number

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Ethan wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 15:30, Tim Cook wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Ethan wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 14:55, Tim Cook wrote: >>> >>>> &

[zfs-discuss] Can you manually trigger spares?

Is there a way to manually trigger a hot spare to kick in? Mine doesn't appear to be doing so. What happened is I exported a pool to reinstall solaris on this system. When I went to re-import it, one of the drives refused to come back online. So, the pool imported degraded, but it doesn't seem

Re: [zfs-discuss] Fishworks 2010Q1 and dedup bug?

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Miles Nordin wrote: > > "al" == Adam Leventhal writes: > >al> As always, we welcome feedback (although zfs-discuss is not >al> the appropriate forum), > > ``Please, you criticize our work in private while we compliment it in > public.'' > I'm betting

Re: [zfs-discuss] Fishworks 2010Q1 and dedup bug?

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Miles Nordin wrote: > >>>>> "tc" == Tim Cook writes: > >tc> I'm betting its more the fact that zfs-discuss is not > > Firstly, there's no need for you to respond on anyone's behalf, > especially

Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel SASUC8I - worth every penny

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Svein Skogen wrote: > How does it fare, with regards to BUG ID 689477? > > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6894775 > > //Svein > > It fairs identically, it's literally the exact same card OEM'd by Intel and sold for less money. Same dr

Re: [zfs-discuss] corruption of ZFS on iScsi storage

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Gabriele Bulfon wrote: > Hello, > I'd like to check for any guidance about using zfs on iscsi storage > appliances. > Recently I had an unlucky situation with an unlucky storage machine > freezing. > Once the storage was up again (rebooted) all other iscsi clients

Re: [zfs-discuss] corruption of ZFS on iScsi storage

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Ross Walker wrote: > On Mar 15, 2010, at 7:11 PM, Tonmaus wrote: > > Being an iscsi >>> target, this volume was mounted as a single iscsi >>> disk from the solaris host, and prepared as a zfs >>> pool consisting of this single iscsi target. ZFS best >>> practice

Re: [zfs-discuss] Proposition of a new zpool property.

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Mar 20, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Svein Skogen wrote: > > We all know that data corruption may happen, even on the most reliable of > hardware. That's why zfs har pool scrubbing. > > > > Could we introduce a zpool option (as in zpool set ) > fo

Re: [zfs-discuss] Proposition of a new zpool property.

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Gary Gendel wrote: > I'm not sure I like this at all. Some of my pools take hours to scrub. I > have a cron job run scrubs in sequence... Start one pool's scrub and then > poll until it's finished, start the next and wait, and so on so I don't > create too much

Re: [zfs-discuss] Proposition of a new zpool property.

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Sat, 20 Mar 2010, Tim Cook wrote: > >> >> Funny (ironic?) you'd quote the UNIX philosophy when the Linux folks have >> been running around since day >> one claim

Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Jacob Ritorto wrote: > Sorry to beat the dead horse, but I've just found perhaps the only > written proof that OpenSolaris is supportable. For those of you who > deny that this is an issue, its existence as a supported OS has been > recently erased from every othe

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on a 11TB HW RAID-5 controller

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Dusan Radovanovic wrote: > Hello all, > > I am a complete newbie to OpenSolaris, and must to setup a ZFS NAS. I do > have linux experience, but have never used ZFS. I have tried to install > OpenSolaris Developer 134 on a 11TB HW RAID-5 virtual disk, but after the

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID10

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Slack-Moehrle wrote: > Hi All, > > I am looking at ZFS and I get that they call it RAIDZ which is similar to > RAID 5, but what about RAID 10? Isn't a RAID 10 setup better for data > protection? > > So if I have 8 x 1.5tb drives, wouldn't I: > > - mirror drive 1 a

Re: [zfs-discuss] RAID10

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Slack-Moehrle wrote: > > OK, so I made progress today. FreeBSD see's all of my drives, ZFS is acting > correct. > > Now for me confusion. > > RAIDz3 > > # zpool create datastore raidz3 da0 da1 da2 da3 da4 da5 da6 da7 > Gives: 'raidz3' no such GEOM providor > > # I

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS where to go!

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Mar 26, 2010, at 3:25 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote: > > > Richard, > > > > My challenge to you is that at least three vedors that I know of built > > their storage platforms on FreeBSD. One of them sells $4bn/year of > > product - petty sure t

Re: [zfs-discuss] b134 - Mirrored rpool won't boot unless both mirrors are present

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Russ Price wrote: > I have two 500 GB drives on my system that are attached to built-in SATA > ports on my Asus M4A785-M motherboard, running in AHCI mode. If I shut down > the system, remove either drive, and then try to boot the system, it will > fail to boot. I

Re: [zfs-discuss] b134 - Mirrored rpool won't boot unless both mirrors are present

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Russ Price wrote: > > What build? How long have you waited for the boot? It > > almost sounds to me like it's waiting for the > > drive and hasn't timed out before you give up and > > power it off. > > I waited about three minutes. This is a b134 installation. >

Re: [zfs-discuss] b134 - Mirrored rpool won't boot unless both mirrors are present

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 7:57 PM, William Bauer wrote: > Posted this reply in the help forum, copying it here: > > I frequently use mirrors to replace disks, or even as a backup with an > esata dock. So I set up v134 with a mirror in VB, ran installgrub, then > detached each drive in turn. I compl

Re: [zfs-discuss] b134 - Mirrored rpool won't boot unless both mirrors are present

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:03 PM, William Bauer wrote: > Depends on a lot of things. I'd let it sit for at least half an hour to > see if you get any messages. 30 seconds, if it's waiting for the driver > stack timeouts, is way too short. > - > > I'm not the OP, but

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20 numbers

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > > Nobody knows any way for me to remove my unmirrored > > > log device. Nobody knows any way for me to add a mirror to it (until > > > > Since snv_125 you can remove log devices. See > > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20 numbers

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Tim Cook wrote: > >> >> http://www.opensolaris.com/learn/features/availability/ >> >> Full production level support >> >> Both Standard

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20 numbers

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Tim Cook wrote: > >> >> If there is ever another OpenSolaris formal release, then the situation >> will be different. >> >> Cmon now, have a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20 numbers

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Chris Ridd wrote: > On 31 Mar 2010, at 17:23, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > > > Yesterday I noticed that the Sun Studio 12 compiler (used to build > OpenSolaris) now costs a minimum of $1,015/year. The "Premium" service plan > costs $200 more. > > The download still

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20 numbers

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Kyle McDonald wrote: > On 4/2/2010 8:08 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > >> I know it is way after the fact, but I find it best to coerce each > >> drive down to the whole GB boundary using format (create Solaris > >> partition just up to the boundary). Then if you e

Re: [zfs-discuss] To slice, or not to slice

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > Momentarily, I will begin scouring the omniscient interweb for > information, but I’d like to know a little bit of what people would say > here. The question is to slice, or not to slice, disks before using them in > a zpool. > > > > One

Re: [zfs-discuss] To slice, or not to slice

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote: > On 03/04/2010 19:24, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Edward Ned Harvey > wrote: > >> Momentarily, I will begin scouring the omniscient interweb for >> information, but I’d

Re: [zfs-discuss] To slice, or not to slice

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote: > >> On 03/04/2010 19:24, Tim Cook wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Edward Ned Harvey < >> guacam...@nedharvey.com&

Re: [zfs-discuss] To slice, or not to slice

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Apr 3, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > >> Your experience is exactly why I suggested ZFS start doing some "right > sizing" if you will. Ch

Re: [zfs-discuss] mpxio load-balancing...it doesn't work??

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Brad wrote: > I had always thought that with mpxio, it load-balances IO request across > your storage ports but this article > http://christianbilien.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/storage-array-bottlenecks/has > got me thinking its not true. > > "The available bandwidt

Re: [zfs-discuss] To slice, or not to slice

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > CR 6844090, zfs should be able to mirror to a smaller disk > > http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6844090 > > b117, June 2009 > > Awesome. Now if someone would only port that to solaris, I'd be a happy > man. ;

Re: [zfs-discuss] mpxio load-balancing...it doesn't work??

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Brad wrote: > I'm wondering if the author is talking about "cache mirroring" where the > cache is mirrored between both controllers. If that is the case, is he > saying that for every write to the active controlle,r a second write issued > on the passive controlle

Re: [zfs-discuss] Diagnosing Permanent Errors

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Willard Korfhage wrote: > It certainly has symptoms that match a marginal power supply, but I > measured the power consumption some time ago and found it comfortably within > the power supply's capacity. I've also wondered if the RAM is fine, but > there is just som

Re: [zfs-discuss] Diagnosing Permanent Errors

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Daniel Carosone wrote: > On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 09:35:21PM -0700, Willard Korfhage wrote: > > By the way, I see that now one of the disks is listed as degraded - too > many errors. Is there a good way to identify exactly which of the disks it > is? > > It's hidde

Re: [zfs-discuss] Diagnosing Permanent Errors

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Daniel Carosone wrote: > On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 12:29:35AM -0500, Tim Cook wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Daniel Carosone > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 09:35:21PM -0700, Willard Korfhage wrote: > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Are there (non-Sun/Oracle) vendors selling OpenSolaris/ZFS based NAS Hardware?

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Jeremy Archer wrote: > GreenBytes (USA) sells OpenSolaris based storage appliances > Web site: www.getgreenbytes.com > > Unless something has changed recently, they were using their own modified, and non-

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS RaidZ recommendation

On Wednesday, April 7, 2010, Jason S wrote: > Since i already have Open Solaris installed on the box, i probably wont jump > over to FreeBSD. However someone has suggested to me to look into > www.nexenta.org and i must say it is quite interesting. Someone correct me if > i am wrong but it look

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS RaidZ recommendation

On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2010, Jason S wrote: > >> Since i already have Open Solaris installed on the box, i probably wont > jump over to FreeBSD. However someone has su

Re: [zfs-discuss] What happens when unmirrored ZIL log device is removed ungracefully

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > Due to recent experiences, and discussion on this list, my colleague and > I performed some tests: > > > > Using solaris 10, fully upgraded. (zpool 15 is latest, which does not have > log device removal that was introduced in zpool 19)

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS RaidZ recommendation

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Eric D. Mudama wrote: > On Sat, Apr 10 at 7:22, Daniel Carosone wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 10:21:08AM -0700, Eric Andersen wrote: >> >>> If I could find a reasonable backup method that avoided external >>> enclosures altogether, I would take that route.

Re: [zfs-discuss] recomend sata controller 4 Home server with zfs raidz2 and 8x1tb hd

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:21 AM, george wrote: > hi all > > im brand new to opensolaris ... feel free to call me noob :) > > i need to build a home server for media and general storage > > zfs sound like the perfect solution > > but i need to buy a 8 (or more) SATA controller > > any suggestions

Re: [zfs-discuss] recomend sata controller 4 Home server with zfs raidz2 and 8x1tb hd

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Günther wrote: > hello > > if you are looking for pci-e (8x), i would recommend sas/sata controller > with lsi 1068E sas chip. they are nearly perfect with opensolaris. > > you must look for controller with it firmware (jbod mode) not > those with raid enabled (i

Re: [zfs-discuss] recomend sata controller 4 Home server with zfs raidz2 and 8x1tb hd

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: > "Eric D. Mudama" writes: > > > On Thu, Apr 15 at 23:57, Günther wrote: > >>hello > >> > >>if you are looking for pci-e (8x), i would recommend sas/sata controller > >>with lsi 1068E sas chip. they are nearly perfect with opensolaris. > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] recomend sata controller 4 Home server with zfs raidz2 and 8x1tb hd

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Harry Putnam wrote: > Tim Cook writes: > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Harry Putnam > wrote: > > > >> "Eric D. Mudama" writes: > >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 15 at 23:57, Günther wrote: > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] recomend sata controller 4 Home server with zfs raidz2 and 8x1tb hd

On Monday, April 19, 2010, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: > - "Harry Putnam" skrev: > >> Erik Trimble writes: >> >> >> Do you think it would be a problem having a second sata card in a >> PCI >> >> slot?  That would be 8 sata ports in all, since the A-open AK86 >> >> motherboard has 2 built in.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opteron 6100? Does it work with opensolaris?

The problem is the Solaris team and lsi have put a lot of work into the new 2008 cards. Claiming there are issues without listing specific bugs they can address is, I'm sure, frustrating to say the least. On May 12, 2010 8:22 AM, "Thomas Burgess" wrote: >> > > Now wait just a minute. You're cast

Re: [zfs-discuss] iSCSI confusion

Yes, it requires a clustered filesystem to share out a single LUN to multiple hosts. Vmfs3, however bad of an implementation, is in fact a clustered filesystem. I highly doubt nfs is your problem though. I'd take nfs over iscsi and vmfs any day. On May 23, 2010 8:06 PM, "Chris Dunbar - Earthside

Re: [zfs-discuss] ssd pool + ssd cache ?

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:45 AM, David Magda wrote: > On Mon, June 7, 2010 09:21, Richard Jahnel wrote: > > I'll have to take your word on the Zeus drives. I don't see any thing in > > thier literature that explicitly states that cache flushes are obeyed or > > other wise protected against power l

Re: [zfs-discuss] NexentaStor 3.0.3 vs OpenSolaris - Patches more up to date?

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Steve Radich, BitShop, Inc. wrote: > > > I see in NexentaStor's announcement of Community Edition 3.0.3 they > mention some backported patches in this release. > > Yes. These patches are in the code tree, curren

Re: [zfs-discuss] NexentaStor 3.0.3 vs OpenSolaris - Patches more up to date?

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:48 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > Given that the most basic of functionality was broken in Nexenta, and not > Opensolaris, and I couldn't get a single response, I have a hard time > recommending ANYONE

Re: [zfs-discuss] NexentaStor 3.0.3 vs OpenSolaris - Patches more up to date?

On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:55 PM, James C. McPherson wrote: > On 3/07/10 12:25 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > >> On Jul 2, 2010, at 6:48 PM, Tim Cook wrote: >> >>> Given that the most basic of functionality was broken in Nexenta, and not >>> Opensolaris, and I coul

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

On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Peter Taps > > > > A few companies have already backed out of zfs > > as they cannot afford to go through a lawsuit. > > Or, in the

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

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: Tim Cook [mailto:t...@cook.ms] > > > > Because VSS isn't doing anything remotely close to what WAFL is doing > > when it takes snapshots. > > It may not do what you want it to do, but it'

Re: [zfs-discuss] Solaris Filesystem

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Beau J. Bechdol wrote: > So not sue if this is the correct list to email to or not. I am curious to > know on my machine I have two hard drive (c8t0d0 and c8t1d0). Can some one > explain to me what this exactly means? What does "c8" "t0" and "d0" actually > mean.

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

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:27 PM, BM wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Edward Ned Harvey > wrote: > > I'll second that. And I think this is how you can tell the difference: > > With supermicro, do you have a single support number to call and a 4hour > > onsite service response time? > >

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

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 1:50 AM, BM wrote: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > > Not to mention you've then got full-time staff on-hand to constantly be > replacing > > parts. > > Maybe I don't understand something, but we also had on-ha

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

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 9:09 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > On Wed, July 14, 2010 23:51, Tim Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 9:27 PM, BM wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Edward Ned Harvey > >> wrote: > >> > I'll s

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus > > > >I am looking for references of folks using ZFS with either NFS > > or iSCSI as the backing store for VMwa

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware

> > > > This is not entirely correct either. You're not forced to use VMFS. > It is entirely true. You absolutely cannot use ESX with a guest on a block device without formatting the LUN with VMFS. You are *FORCED* to use VMFS. You can format the LUN with VMFS, then put VM files inside the VMF

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware

> > > > My understanding is that if you wanted to use MS Cluster Server, you'd need > to use a LUN as an RDM for the quorum drive. VMDK files are locked when > open, so they can't typically be shared. VMware's Fault Tolerance gets > around this somehow, and I have a suspicion that their Lab Manager

[zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they won't be releasing nightly snapshots. It appears they've stopped Illumos in its tracks before it reall

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Erast wrote: > > > On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ >> >> I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't >> get it. The

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Bob Friesenhahn < bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote: > On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, David Magda wrote: > >> >> But that US$ 400 was only if you wanted support. For the last little while >> you could run Solaris 10 legally without a support contract without issues. >> > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Help! Dedup delete FS advice needed!!

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Marc Emmerson wrote: > Hi all, > I have a 10TB array (zpool = 2x 5 disk raidz1), I had dedup enabled on a > couple of filesystems which I decided to delete last week, the first > contained about 6GB of data and was deleted in about 30 minutes, the second > (about 1

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > > On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release > > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't > > retrospectively change the l

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:35:05AM -0700, Tim Cook wrote: > > No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no > > longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That > > is

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010/8/16 "C. Bergström" > Joerg Schilling wrote: > >> "C. Bergström" wrote: >> >> >> >>> I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed BTRFS. >>> No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much >>> already to be available under anything

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Ray Van Dolson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 08:57:19AM -0700, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > "C. Bergström" wrote: > > > > > > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has > dual-licensed > > > > BTRFS. > > > No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead

2010/8/16 "C. Bergström" > Tim Cook wrote: > >> >> >> 2010/8/16 "C. Bergström" > codest...@osunix.org>> >> >> >>Joerg Schilling wrote: >> >>"C. Bergström" ><mailto:codest.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Quickest way to find files with cksum errors without doing scrub

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > On Sep 28, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Albert Chin wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:09:03PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009, Richard Elling wrote: >>> Scrub could be faster, but you can try tar cf

Re: [zfs-discuss] "Hot Space" vs. hot spares

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Brandon High wrote: > I might have this mentioned already on the list and can't find it now, > or I might have misread something and come up with this ... > > Right now, using hot spares is a typical method to increase storage > pool resiliency, since it minimizes

Re: [zfs-discuss] FW: Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 hang when drive removed

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Aaron Brady wrote: > All's gone quiet on this issue, and the bug is closed, but I'm having > exactly the same problem; pulling a disk on this card, under OpenSolaris > 111, is pausing all IO (including, weirdly, network IO), and using the ZFS > utilities (zfs list

Re: [zfs-discuss] SSD over 10gbe not any faster than 10K SAS over GigE

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Derek Anderson wrote: > Before you all start taking bets, I am having a difficult time > understanding why you would. If you think I am nuts because SSD's have a > limited lifespan, I would agree with you, however we all know that SSD's are > going to get cheaper

Re: [zfs-discuss] FW: Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8 hang when drive removed

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Aaron Brady wrote: > I did, but as tcook suggests running a later build, I'll try an > image-update (though, 111 > 2008.11, right?) > It should be, yes. b111 was released in April of 2009. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss maili

Re: [zfs-discuss] fishworks on x4275?

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > 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 > Fishworks can only be run on systems purchased as a 7

Re: [zfs-discuss] fishworks on x4275?

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > 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

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Robert Dupuy wrote: > A word of caution, be sure not to read a lot into the fact that the F20 is > included in the Exadata Machine. > > >From what I've heard the flash_cache feature of 11.2.0 Oracle that was > enabled in beta, is not working in the production rele

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Robert Dupuy wrote: > "there is no consistent latency measurement in the industry" > > You bring up an important point, as did another poster earlier in the > thread, and certainly its an issue that needs to be addressed. > > "I'd be surprised if anyone could answe

Re: [zfs-discuss] Sun Flash Accelerator F20

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Jake Caferilla wrote: > Clearly a lot of people don't understand latency, so I'll talk about > latency, breaking it down in simpler components. > > Sometimes it helps to use made up numbers, to simplify a point. > > Imagine a non-real system that had these 'ridicu

Re: [zfs-discuss] new google group for ZFS on OSX

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > FYI, > The ZFS project on MacOS forge (zfs.macosforge.org) has provided the > following announcement: > >ZFS Project Shutdown2009-10-23 >The ZFS project has been discontinued. The mailing list and > repository wil

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool with very different sized vdevs?

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Travis Tabbal wrote: > Hmm.. I expected people to jump on me yelling that it's a bad idea. :) > > How about this, can I remove a vdev from a pool if the pool still has > enough space to hold the data? So could I add it in and mess with it for a > while without los

Re: [zfs-discuss] SNV_125 MPT warning in logfile

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Bruno Sousa wrote: > Could Sun'x x4540 Thumper reason to have 6 LSI's some sort of "hidden" > problems found by Sun where the HBA resets, and due to market time pressure > the "quick and dirty" solution was to spread the load over multiple HBA's > instead of softw

Re: [zfs-discuss] SNV_125 MPT warning in logfile

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Adam Cheal wrote: > I don't think there was any intention on Sun's part to ignore the > problem...obviously their target market wants a performance-oriented box and > the x4540 delivers that. Each 1068E controller chip supports 8 SAS PHY > channels = 1 channel per

[zfs-discuss] Checksums

So, from what I gather, even though the documentation appears to state otherwise, default checksums have been changed to SHA256. Making that assumption, I have two questions. First, is the default updated from fletcher2 to SHA256 automatically for a pool that was created with an older version of

Re: [zfs-discuss] SNV_125 MPT warning in logfile

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Adam Cheal wrote: > LSI's sales literature on that card specs "128 devices" which I take with a > few hearty grains of salt. I agree that with all 46 drives pumping out > streamed data, the controller would be overworked BUT the drives will only > deliver data as

Re: [zfs-discuss] SNV_125 MPT warning in logfile

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Richard Elling wrote: > > Tim has a valid point. By default, ZFS will queue 35 commands per disk. > For 46 disks that is 1,610 concurrent I/Os. Historically, it has proven to > be > relatively easy to crater performance or cause problems with very, very, > very ex

Re: [zfs-discuss] Checksums

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Adam Leventhal wrote: > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 06:55:41PM -0500, Tim Cook wrote: > > So, from what I gather, even though the documentation appears to state > > otherwise, default checksums have been changed to SHA256. Making that > > a

Re: [zfs-discuss] SNV_125 MPT warning in logfile

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Adam Cheal wrote: > The iostat I posted previously was from a system we had already tuned the > zfs:zfs_vdev_max_pending depth down to 10 (as visible by the max of about 10 > in actv per disk). > > I reset this value in /etc/system to 7, rebooted, and started a sc

Re: [zfs-discuss] SNV_125 MPT warning in logfile

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Tim Cook wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Adam Cheal wrote: > >> The iostat I posted previously was from a system we had already tuned the >> zfs:zfs_vdev_max_pending depth down to 10 (as visible by the max of about 10 >&

Re: [zfs-discuss] SNV_125 MPT warning in logfile

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Carson Gaspar wrote: > > I saw this with my WD 500GB SATA disks (HDS725050KLA360) and LSI firmware > 1.28.02.00 in IT mode, but I (almost?) always had exactly 1 "stuck" I/O. > Note that my disks were one per channel, no expanders. I have _not_ seen it > since rep

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

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: > Hi all, > > I fully understand that within a cost effective point of view, developing > the fishworks for a reduced set of hardware makes , alot, of sense. > However, i think that Sun/Oracle would increase their user base if they > make avail

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

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Dale Ghent wrote: > > 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 wo

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import single user mode incompatible version

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Paul Lyons wrote: > I know this is opensolaris and Solaris, but I'm stuck... > > I want to demonstrate to my client how to recover an unbootable system from > a zfs snapshot. (Say some dope rm -rf /kernel/drv...) Running Solaris 10 U8 > sparc. > > Normal procedure

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import single user mode incompatible version

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:59 PM, dick hoogendijk wrote: > Tim Cook wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Paul Lyons > paulrly...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>When I boot off Solaris 10 U8 I get the error that pool is >>forma

Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool failmode

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:13 PM, deniz rende wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to understand the behavior of zpool failmode=continue rpool. > > I've read the man page regarding to this and I understand that the default > mode is set to wait. So If I set up my zfs pool to continue, in the case of > los

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

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Eric D. Mudama wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27 at 18:58, Bryan Cantrill wrote: > >> Why would we do this? I'm all for zero-cost endeavors, but this isn't >> zero-cost -- and I'm having a hard time seeing the business case here, >> especially when we have so many paying c

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

2009/10/28 Eric D. Mudama > On Wed, Oct 28 at 13:40, "C. Bergström" wrote: > >> Tim Cook wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> PS: Not having enough engineers to support a growing and paying >>> customer base is a *good* problem to have.

  1   2   3   4   5   >