Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Scalability/performance
On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 12:03:02PM -0400, Will Murnane wrote: > Yes. 2 disks means when one fails, you've still got an extra. In > raid 5 boxes, it's not uncommon with large arrays for one disk to die, > and when it's replaced, the stress on the other disks causes another > failure. Then the array is toast. I don't know if this is a problem > on ZFS... but they took the time to implement raidz2, so I'd suggest > it. If you buy all the disks at once and add them to a pool all at once, they should all theoretically have appoximately the same lifespan. When one dies, you can almost count on others following soon after. Nothing sucks more than your "redundant" disk array losing more disks than it can support and you lose all your data anyway. You'd be better off doing a giant non-parity stripe and dumping to tape on a regular basis. ;) -brian -- "Perl can be fast and elegant as much as J2EE can be fast and elegant. In the hands of a skilled artisan, it can and does happen; it's just that most of the shit out there is built by people who'd be better suited to making sure that my burger is cooked thoroughly." -- Jonathan Patschke ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Slow write speed to ZFS pool (via NFS)
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 11:36:53AM +0200, Roch - PAE wrote: > > code) or Samba might be better by being careless with data. Well, it *is* trying to be a Microsoft replacement. Gotta get it right, you know? ;) -brian -- "Perl can be fast and elegant as much as J2EE can be fast and elegant. In the hands of a skilled artisan, it can and does happen; it's just that most of the shit out there is built by people who'd be better suited to making sure that my burger is cooked thoroughly." -- Jonathan Patschke ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Btrfs, COW for Linux [somewhat OT]
mike wrote: it's about time. this hopefully won't spark another license debate, etc... ZFS may never get into linux officially, but there's no reason a lot of the same features and ideologies can't make it into a linux-approved-with-no-arguments filesystem... Well, there's a dark horse here called "patents". Nobody really knows the full extent of who's got what or what covers what between the likes of Sun (ZFS/Stotek), NetApp (WAFL) and IBM (ARC?). Maybe this patent game will just end up being like the cold war with nuclear missiles...and the only real winners being the lawyers and patents office collecting $$. Darren ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Suggestions on 30 drive configuration?
Dan Saul wrote: I care more about data integrity then performance. Of course if performance is so bad that one would not be able to, say stream a video off of it that wouldn't be acceptable. Any config I could imagine would be able to stream several videos at once (even 10Mbit/sec 1080p HD). For very high data integrity and plenty of performance for streaming a few videos, I'd try: 3 x 9-wide raidz-2 3 x hot spare For a total of 21 disks worth of usable space. If you need a bit more space, do: 2 x 14-wide raidz-2 2 x hot spare for a total of 24 disks worth of usable space. --matt On 6/22/07, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dan Saul wrote: > Good day ZFS-Discuss, > > I am planning to build an array of 30 drives in a RaidZ2 configuration > with two hot spares. However I read on the internet that this was not > ideal. > > So I ask those who are more experianced then me, what configuration > would you recommend with ZFS, I would like to have some redundancy but > still keeping as much disk space open for my uses as possible. > > I don't want to mirror 15 drives to 15 drives as that would > drastically affect my storage capacity. There are hundreds of possible combinations of 30 drives. It really comes down to a trade-off of space vs performance vs RAS. http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/zfs_raid_recommendations_space_performance -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Suggestions on 30 drive configuration?
Dan Saul wrote: I care more about data integrity then performance. Of course if performance is so bad that one would not be able to, say stream a video off of it that wouldn't be acceptable. The model I used in this blog deals with small, random reads, not streaming workloads. In part this is because the data needed to calculate small, random read performance is readily available on disk data sheets. For streaming workloads we can calculate the media bandwidth, which will be good when you have multiple drives. But there are other limitations in the system which will ultimately cap the bandwidth, and those limitations are not expressed in data sheets. The best way is to try it. Let us know how it works. -- richard On 6/22/07, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dan Saul wrote: > Good day ZFS-Discuss, > > I am planning to build an array of 30 drives in a RaidZ2 configuration > with two hot spares. However I read on the internet that this was not > ideal. > > So I ask those who are more experianced then me, what configuration > would you recommend with ZFS, I would like to have some redundancy but > still keeping as much disk space open for my uses as possible. > > I don't want to mirror 15 drives to 15 drives as that would > drastically affect my storage capacity. There are hundreds of possible combinations of 30 drives. It really comes down to a trade-off of space vs performance vs RAS. http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/zfs_raid_recommendations_space_performance -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Suggestions on 30 drive configuration?
I care more about data integrity then performance. Of course if performance is so bad that one would not be able to, say stream a video off of it that wouldn't be acceptable. On 6/22/07, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dan Saul wrote: > Good day ZFS-Discuss, > > I am planning to build an array of 30 drives in a RaidZ2 configuration > with two hot spares. However I read on the internet that this was not > ideal. > > So I ask those who are more experianced then me, what configuration > would you recommend with ZFS, I would like to have some redundancy but > still keeping as much disk space open for my uses as possible. > > I don't want to mirror 15 drives to 15 drives as that would > drastically affect my storage capacity. There are hundreds of possible combinations of 30 drives. It really comes down to a trade-off of space vs performance vs RAS. http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/zfs_raid_recommendations_space_performance -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Indiana Wish List
andrewk9 wrote: Apologies: I've just realised all this talk of "I've booted off of ZFS" is totally bogus. What they've actually done is booted off Ext3FS, for example, then jumped into loading the "real" root from the zpool. That'll teach me to read things first. This is indeed a pretty ugly hack. The only obstacle, as I see it, to getting *real* RAIDZ / RAIDZ2 boot support is adding the requisite code for reading the zpool into Grub. There was also some discussion that on some systems, the ZFS grub plugin would be unable to reliably access large numbers of disks due to BIOS bugs / limitations on x86. Correct, only one disk at a time can be accessed. This is the problem, since on RAID-Z, files can be spread all over the disks in the pool. With simple mirroring, you are guaranteed that each file can be read, in its entirety, from a single disk. Booting from RAID-Z is planned for the second release of zfs boot. The design is unclear, but it will probably involve a new dataset option (the"replicate on all disks in the pool" option) which will enable us to make sure that the files needed for booting can be read from a single disk. This begs the question: does Sun have a version of the ZFS Grub plugin that *can* read (however un-reliably) from a RAIDZ pool? No. Lori ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] NexentaCP Beta1-test2 (ZFS/Boot - manual partitioning support)
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Erast Benson wrote: New unstable ISO of NexentaCP (Core Platform) available. http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso/ncp_beta1-test2-b67_i386.iso Also available at: http://www.genunix.org/distributions/gnusolaris/index.html Changes: * ON B67 based * ZFS/Boot manual partitioning support implemented (in addition to auto-partitioning). Both, Wizard and FDisk types fully supported. * gcc/g++ now officially included on installation media * APT repository fixed * first official meta-package: nexenta-gnome After installation, those who needs GNOME environment, just type: $ sudo apt-get install nexenta-gnome Known bugs: * after fresh install APT caches needs to be re-created: $ sudo rm /var/lib/apt/* $ sudo apt-get update -- Erast Regards, Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc, Plano, TX. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: 972.379.2133 Fax: 972.379.2134 Timezone: US CDT OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Indiana Wish List
Apologies: I've just realised all this talk of "I've booted off of ZFS" is totally bogus. What they've actually done is booted off Ext3FS, for example, then jumped into loading the "real" root from the zpool. That'll teach me to read things first. This is indeed a pretty ugly hack. The only obstacle, as I see it, to getting *real* RAIDZ / RAIDZ2 boot support is adding the requisite code for reading the zpool into Grub. There was also some discussion that on some systems, the ZFS grub plugin would be unable to reliably access large numbers of disks due to BIOS bugs / limitations on x86. This begs the question: does Sun have a version of the ZFS Grub plugin that *can* read (however un-reliably) from a RAIDZ pool? Cheers Andrew. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
RE: [zfs-discuss] zfs and snmp disk space stats
Gimme specific examples and I'll have a look at it. We (net-snmp) are just about to release a new version (5.4.1) so I'd like to fix it before it goes to production. It may be a known bug, since fixed, with 5.0.9. >Not specifically a ZFS question, but is anyone monitoring disk space of their ZFS filesystems via the Solaris 10 snmpd? I can't find any 64-bit counters in the MIB for disk space, so the normal tools I use get completely wrong numbers for my 1-terabyte pool. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Implicit storage tiering w/ ZFS
Blue Thunder Somogyi wrote: I'm curious if there has been any discussion of or work done toward implementing storage classing within zpools (this would be similar to the storage foundation QoSS feature). There has been some discussion. AFAIK, there is no significant work in progress. This problem is far more complex to solve than it may first appear. I've searched the forum and inspected the documentation looking for a means to do this, and haven't found anything, so pardon the post if this is redundant/superfluous. I would imagine this would require something along the lines of: a) the ability to catagorize devices in a zpool with thier "class of storage", perhaps a numeric rating or otherwise, with the idea that the fastest disks get a "1" and the slowest get a "9" (or whatever the largest number of supported tiers would be) This gets more complicated when devices are very asymmetric in performance. For a current example, consider an NVRAM-backed RAID array. Writes tend to complete very quickly, regardless of the offset. But reads can vary widely, and may be an order of magnitude slower. However, this will not be consistent as many of these arrays also cache reads (like JBOD track buffer caches). Today, there are some devices which may demonstrate 2 or more orders of magnitude difference between read and write latency. b) leveraging the copy-on-write nature of ZFS, when data is modified, the new copy would be sent to the devices that were appropriate given statistical information regarding that data's access/modification frequency. Not being familiar with ZFS internals, I don't know if there would be a way of taking advantage of the ARC knowledge of access frequency. I think the data is there. This gets further complicated when a vdev shares a resource with another vdev. A shared resource may not be visible to Solaris at all, so it would be difficult (or wrong) for Solaris to make a policy with incorrect assumptions about resource constraints. c) It seems to me there would need to be some trawling of the storage tiers (probably only the fastest, as the COW migration of frequently accessed data to fast disk would not have an analogously inherent mechanism to move idle data down a tier) to locate data that is gathering cobwebs and stage it down to an appropriate tier. Obviously it would be nice to have as much data as possible on the fastest disks, while leaving all the free space on the dog disks, but would also want to avoid any "write twice" behavior (not enough space on appropriate tier so staged to slower tier and migrated up to faster disk) due to the fastest tier being overfull. When I follow this logical progression, I arrive at SAM-FS. Perhaps it is better to hook ZFS info SAM-FS? While zpools are great for dealing with large volumes of data with integrity and minimal management overhead, I've remained concerned about the inabiity to control where data lives when using different types of storage, eg a mix of FC and SATA disk in the extreme, mirror vs RAID-Z2, or as subtle as high RPM small spindles vs low RPM large spindles. There is no real difference in performance based on the interface: FC vs. SATA. So it would be a bad idea to base a policy on the interface type. For instance, if you had a database that you know has 100GB of dynamic data and 900GB of more stable data, with the above capabilities you could allocate the appropriate ratio of FC and SATA disk and be confident that the data would naturally migrate to it's appropriate underlying storage. Of course there are ways of using multiple zpools with the different storage types and table spaces to locate the data onto the appropriate zpool, but this is undermining the "minimal management" appeal of ZFS. The people who tend to really care about performance will do what is needed to get performance, and that doesn't include intentially using slow devices. Perhaps you are thinking of a different market demographic? Anyhow, just curious if this concept has come up before and if there are any plans around it (or something similar). Statistically, it is hard to beat stochastically spreading wide and far. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] data structures in ZFS
A data structure view of ZFS is now available: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/structures/ We've only got one picture up right now (though its a juicy one!), but let us know what you're interested in seeing, and we'll try to make that happen. I see this as a nice supplement to the actual source: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/source/ and the on-disk format guide: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/ondiskformat0822.pdf And hopefully some of this will find its way into the ZFS chapter of the Solaris Internals book: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0131482092? tag=solarisintern-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASI N=0131482092&adid=0VTFCDYF5NTGMS4F14XP& http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/ Solaris_Internals_and_Performance_FAQ happy friday, eric ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] New article on ZFS in Russian
Hi, Recently PC Magazine Russian Edition published article about ZFS in Russian titled ZFS - Новый взгляд на файловые системы or in English ZFS - New view on a filesystem http://www.pcmag.ru/solutions/detail.php?ID=9141 There's already so much collateral on ZFS in English and other languages, so it is good to have article on ZFS in one more language. It is good to have slides of the famous "ZFS - The Last Word in File Systems" handy, for example, ones used by Neil Perrin during his talk at Sun Tech Days in Saint-Petersburg, since article rather closely follows slides in the presentation. Hope this helps, Victor ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Undo/reverse zpool create
Joubert Nel wrote: What I meant is that when I do "zpool create" on a disk, the entire contents of the disk doesn't seem to be overwritten/destroyed. I.e. I suspect that if I didn't copy any data to this disk, a large portion of what was on it is potentially recoverable. If so, is there a tool that can help with such recovery? I can't answer this in detail, but, to borrow from Tim O'Reilly, think of it as the text of a book where you've lost the table of contents and the first few chapters, and thrown all the remaining pages on the floor... -- Michael SchusterSun Microsystems, Inc. recursion, n: see 'recursion' ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Implicit storage tiering w/ ZFS
I'm curious if there has been any discussion of or work done toward implementing storage classing within zpools (this would be similar to the storage foundation QoSS feature). I've searched the forum and inspected the documentation looking for a means to do this, and haven't found anything, so pardon the post if this is redundant/superfluous. I would imagine this would require something along the lines of: a) the ability to catagorize devices in a zpool with thier "class of storage", perhaps a numeric rating or otherwise, with the idea that the fastest disks get a "1" and the slowest get a "9" (or whatever the largest number of supported tiers would be) b) leveraging the copy-on-write nature of ZFS, when data is modified, the new copy would be sent to the devices that were appropriate given statistical information regarding that data's access/modification frequency. Not being familiar with ZFS internals, I don't know if there would be a way of taking advantage of the ARC knowledge of access frequency. c) It seems to me there would need to be some trawling of the storage tiers (probably only the fastest, as the COW migration of frequently accessed data to fast disk would not have an analogously inherent mechanism to move idle data down a tier) to locate data that is gathering cobwebs and stage it down to an appropriate tier. Obviously it would be nice to have as much data as possible on the fastest disks, while leaving all the free space on the dog disks, but would also want to avoid any "write twice" behavior (not enough space on appropriate tier so staged to slower tier and migrated up to faster disk) due to the fastest tier being overfull. While zpools are great for dealing with large volumes of data with integrity and minimal management overhead, I've remained concerned about the inabiity to control where data lives when using different types of storage, eg a mix of FC and SATA disk in the extreme, mirror vs RAID-Z2, or as subtle as high RPM small spindles vs low RPM large spindles. For instance, if you had a database that you know has 100GB of dynamic data and 900GB of more stable data, with the above capabilities you could allocate the appropriate ratio of FC and SATA disk and be confident that the data would naturally migrate to it's appropriate underlying storage. Of course there are ways of using multiple zpools with the different storage types and table spaces to locate the data onto the appropriate zpool, but this is undermining the "minimal management" appeal of ZFS. Anyhow, just curious if this concept has come up before and if there are any plans around it (or something similar). Thanks, BTS This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Undo/reverse zpool create
> What I meant is that when I do "zpool create" on a disk, the entire > contents of the disk doesn't seem to be overwritten/destroyed. I.e. I > suspect that if I didn't copy any data to this disk, a large portion > of what was on it is potentially recoverable. Presumably a scavenger program could try to find the top of the oldest tree and construct an uberblock that points to it. > If so, is there a tool that can help with such recovery? Not that I'm aware of. -- Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Technical Consultant TAOShttp://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Undo/reverse zpool create
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 07:34:13PM -0700, Joubert Nel wrote: > > OK, so if I didn't copy any data to this disk, presumably a large > portion of what was on the disk previously is theoretically > recoverable. There is really one file in particular that I'd like to > recover (it is a cpio backup). > > Is there a tool that can accomplish this? For ZFS, no. In addition to the fact that ZFS uses variable blocksizes and compression, there is no distinction between metadata and data. Without knowing the pool configuration and the 'root' of the tree (the uberblock), there is no way for ZFS to recover data. An interesting tool could be written to try to recover data from trivial (single vdev, non-RAID-Z, uncompressed) pools by trying to interpret each block as metadata and verifying the checksums, but it would still be quite difficult (and painfully slow). - Eric -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] NexentaCP Beta1-test2 (ZFS/Boot - manual partitioning support)
New unstable ISO of NexentaCP (Core Platform) available. http://www.gnusolaris.org/unstable-iso/ncp_beta1-test2-b67_i386.iso Changes: * ON B67 based * ZFS/Boot manual partitioning support implemented (in addition to auto-partitioning). Both, Wizard and FDisk types fully supported. * gcc/g++ now officially included on installation media * APT repository fixed * first official meta-package: nexenta-gnome After installation, those who needs GNOME environment, just type: $ sudo apt-get install nexenta-gnome Known bugs: * after fresh install APT caches needs to be re-created: $ sudo rm /var/lib/apt/* $ sudo apt-get update -- Erast ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Suggestions on 30 drive configuration?
Dan Saul wrote: Good day ZFS-Discuss, I am planning to build an array of 30 drives in a RaidZ2 configuration with two hot spares. However I read on the internet that this was not ideal. So I ask those who are more experianced then me, what configuration would you recommend with ZFS, I would like to have some redundancy but still keeping as much disk space open for my uses as possible. I don't want to mirror 15 drives to 15 drives as that would drastically affect my storage capacity. There are hundreds of possible combinations of 30 drives. It really comes down to a trade-off of space vs performance vs RAS. http://blogs.sun.com/relling/entry/zfs_raid_recommendations_space_performance -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] cannot boot zone on zfs inside a logical domain 65543017
cust has this issue: Sun Fire T2000 solaris 10 11/06 This is a new install and ZFS has not worked at all inside of a Logical Domain. Unfortunately, nothing shows up in the messages file and I receive no errors when trying to boot the zone. It appears to just hang when trying to import the service manifests, and it is never the same service manifest. I appreciate any help that can be provided. -- Thanks! Have a good day! Claire Grandalski - OS Technical Support Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] (800)USA-4SUN (Reference your Case Id #) Hours 8:00 - 3:00 EST Sun Support Services 4 Network Drive, UBUR04-105 Burlington MA 01803-0902 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs and snmp disk space stats
Not specifically a ZFS question, but is anyone monitoring disk space of their ZFS filesystems via the Solaris 10 snmpd? I can't find any 64-bit counters in the MIB for disk space, so the normal tools I use get completely wrong numbers for my 1-terabyte pool. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS + ISCSI + LINUX QUESTIONS
Al, Has there been any resolution to this problem? I get it repeatedly on my 5-500GB Raidz configuration. I sometimes get port drop/reconnect errors when this occurs. Gary This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Undo/reverse zpool create
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 11:03:39AM -0700, Joubert Nel > wrote: > > > > When I ran "zpool create", the pool got created > without a warning. > > zpool(1M) will diallow creation of the disk if it > contains data in > active use (mounted fs, zfs pool, dump device, swap, > etc). It will warn > if it contains a recognized filesystem (zfs, ufs, > etc) that is not > currently mounted, but allow you to override it with > '-f'. What was > previously on the disk? It was ZFS with a few GB of data. > > > What is strange, and maybe I'm naive here, is that > there was no > > "formatting" of this physical disk so I'm > optimistic that the data is > > still recoverable from it, even though the new pool > shadows it. > > > > Or is this way off mark? > > You are guaranteed to have lost all data within the > vdev label portions > of the disk (see on-disk specification from > opensolaris.org). How much > else you lost depends on how long the device was > active in the pool and > how much data was written to it. OK, so if I didn't copy any data to this disk, presumably a large portion of what was on the disk previously is theoretically recoverable. There is really one file in particular that I'd like to recover (it is a cpio backup). Is there a tool that can accomplish this? Joubert This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Undo/reverse zpool create
Richard, > Joubert Nel wrote: > >> If the device was actually in use on another > system, I > >> would expect that libdiskmgmt would have warned > you about > >> this when you ran "zpool create". > > AFAIK, libdiskmgmt is not multi-node aware. It does > know about local > uses of the disk. Remote uses of the disk, > especially those shared with > other OSes, is a difficult problem to solve where > there are no standards. > Reason #84612 why I hate SANs. > > > When I ran "zpool create", the pool got created > without a warning. > > If the device was not currently in use, why wouldn't > it proceed? > > > What is strange, and maybe I'm naive here, is that > there was no "formatting" of this physical disk so > I'm optimistic that the data is still recoverable > from it, even though the new pool shadows it. > > > > Or is this way off mark? > > If you define formatting as writing pertinent > information to the disk > such that ZFS works, then it was formatted. The > uberblock and its replicas > only take a few iops. What I meant is that when I do "zpool create" on a disk, the entire contents of the disk doesn't seem to be overwritten/destroyed. I.e. I suspect that if I didn't copy any data to this disk, a large portion of what was on it is potentially recoverable. If so, is there a tool that can help with such recovery? Joubert This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZIL on user specified devices?
On Jun 21, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Bryan Wagoner wrote: Quick question, Are there any tunables, or is there any way to specify devices in a pool to use for the ZIL specifically? I've been thinking through architectures to mitigate performance problems on SAN and various other storage technologies where disabling ZIL or cache flushes has been necessary to make up for performance and was wondering if there would be a way to specify a specific device or set of devices for the ZIL to use separate of the data devices so I wouldn't have to disable it in those circumstances. See: 6339640 Make ZIL use NVRAM when available. Neil has done some really nice work and is very close to putting back... wait a couple of days... eric ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Bug in "zpool history"
On 6/21/07, eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > # zpool history > 2007-06-20.10:19:46 zfs snapshot syspool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 2007-06-20.10:20:03 zfs clone syspool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] syspool/ > myrootfs > 2007-06-20.10:23:21 zfs set bootfs=syspool/myrootfs syspool > > As you can see it says I did a "zfs set bootfs=..." even though the > correct command should have been "zpool set bootfs=...". Of course > this is purely cosmetical. I currently don't have access to a recent > nevada build so I just wonder if this is present there as well. nice catch... i filed: 6572465 'zpool set bootfs=...' records history as 'zfs set bootfs=...' expect a fix today simply passing 'FALSE' instead of 'TRUE' as the 'pool' parameter in zpool_log_history(). Great. Thanks. cheers, Nickus -- Have a look at my blog for sysadmins! http://aspiringsysadmin.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Suggestions on 30 drive configuration?
Good day ZFS-Discuss, I am planning to build an array of 30 drives in a RaidZ2 configuration with two hot spares. However I read on the internet that this was not ideal. So I ask those who are more experianced then me, what configuration would you recommend with ZFS, I would like to have some redundancy but still keeping as much disk space open for my uses as possible. I don't want to mirror 15 drives to 15 drives as that would drastically affect my storage capacity. Thank you for your time, Dan ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZIL on user specified devices?
This feature is implemented as part of PSARC 2007/171 and will be putback shortly. - Eric On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 03:25:30PM -0700, Bryan Wagoner wrote: > Quick question, > > Are there any tunables, or is there any way to specify devices in a > pool to use for the ZIL specifically? I've been thinking through > architectures to mitigate performance problems on SAN and various > other storage technologies where disabling ZIL or cache flushes has > been necessary to make up for performance and was wondering if there > would be a way to specify a specific device or set of devices for the > ZIL to use separate of the data devices so I wouldn't have to disable > it in those circumstances. > > Thanks in advance! > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Eric Schrock, Solaris Kernel Development http://blogs.sun.com/eschrock ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZIL on user specified devices?
Bryna, Your timing is excellent! We've been working on this for a while now and hopefully within the next day I'll be adding support for separate log devices into Nevada. I'll send out more details soon... Neil. Bryan Wagoner wrote: Quick question, Are there any tunables, or is there any way to specify devices in a pool to use for the ZIL specifically? I've been thinking through architectures to mitigate performance problems on SAN and various other storage technologies where disabling ZIL or cache flushes has been necessary to make up for performance and was wondering if there would be a way to specify a specific device or set of devices for the ZIL to use separate of the data devices so I wouldn't have to disable it in those circumstances. Thanks in advance! This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
