Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ACL/ACE issues with Samba - Access Denied
Hi Eric and all, > Can anyone point me in the right direction here? Much appreciated! I have worked on a similar issue this week. Though I have not worked through all the information you have provided, could you please try the settings and source code changes I posted here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg97466.html Cheers, Nils ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best practice for swap and root pool
>On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 04:30:59PM +0100, "C. Bergstr?m" wrote: >> Ok. here's a trick question.. So to the best of my understanding zfs >> turns off write caching if it doesn't own the whole disk.. So what if s0 >> *is* the whole disk? Is write cache supposed to be turned on or off? > >Actually, ZFS doesn't turn on write caching if it doesn't own the whole >disk. It leaves it alone. You can turn it on yourself. > >It leaves it alone because it doesn't know if it would be safe to >enable. If you know that there is nothing on the disk other than ZFS, >you can enable it and ZFS will get the benefit. Isn't it true that for IDE disks, the disks have "write caching" enabled by default? >Swapfile performance is usually pretty far down on the list of things I >want to optimize. I'd rather set up for good management and expect that >I won't need high-performance swapfiles. If swap performance is a bottleneck, add more memory. Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Availability: ZFS needs to handle disk removal / driver failure better
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 04:33:54 -0800 (PST) Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm... I logged this CR ages ago, but now I've come to find it in > the bug tracker I can't see it anywhere. > > I actually logged three CR's back to back, the first appears to have > been created ok, but two have just disappeared. The one I created ok > is: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6766364 > > There should be two other CR's created within a few minutes of that, > one for disabling caching on CIFS shares, and one regarding this ZFS > availability discussion. Could somebody at Sun let me know what's > happened to these please. Hi Ross, I can't find the ZFS one you mention. The CIFS one is http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6766126. It's been marked as 'incomplete' so you should contact the R.E. - Alan M. Wright (at sun dot com, etc) to find out what further info is required. hth, James C. McPherson -- Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris Sun Microsystems http://blogs.sun.com/jmcp http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best practice for swap and root pool
On 26 Nov 2008, at 17:08, Chris Ridd wrote: > It feels a lot like "don't start from here" (ie from my 2008.05 > install) so I'm doing an install of 101b from CD onto one of the new > disks right now. At least format's not showing a swap slice now, > yippee. I'll try and get it mirroring afterwards, and then see how > much I can extract from my broken disk. I've successfully got 101b installed and booting and mirrored. I did get a "Bad PBR sig" error after the install onto a single disk, and subsequently noticed the slices on that disk were slightly off: slice 8 (boot) was on cylinder 0, but slices 0 and 2 ended on different cylinders. I adjusted the end of slice 0, ran installgrub on it, and it now boots. I copied that vtoc over to the other disk and ran installgrub on it too. I'm not 100% convinced it'll boot if half the mirror's not there, but I was rearranging the drives on the controller at the time. Presumably that's a terrible idea? Now to recover the bits from my dying disk... Cheers, Chris ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Availability: ZFS needs to handle disk removal / driver failure better
Thanks James, I've e-mailed Alan and submitted this one again. -- 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] Availability: ZFS needs to handle disk removal / driver failure better
Hmm... I logged this CR ages ago, but now I've come to find it in the bug tracker I can't see it anywhere. I actually logged three CR's back to back, the first appears to have been created ok, but two have just disappeared. The one I created ok is: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6766364 There should be two other CR's created within a few minutes of that, one for disabling caching on CIFS shares, and one regarding this ZFS availability discussion. Could somebody at Sun let me know what's happened to these please. -- 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] Availability: ZFS needs to handle disk removal / driver failure better
Hello, Thank you for this very interesting thread ! I want to confirm that Synchronous Distributed Storage is main goal when using ZFS ! The target architecture is 1 local drive, and 2 (or more) remote iSCSI targets, with ZFS being the iSCSI initiator. System is designed/cut so that local disk can handle all needed performance with good margin, as each one of iSCSI targets through large enough Ethernet fibers. I need that any network problem doesn't slow the readings on local disk, and that writings are stopped only if not any remote are available after a time-out. I also did a comment on that subject in : http://blogs.sun.com/roch/entry/using_zfs_as_a_network To myxiplx : we called "Sleeping Failure" a failure of 1 part, that is hidden by redundancy but not detected by monitoring. These are the most dangerous... Would anybody be interested by supporting an opensource "projectseed" called MiSCSI ? This is for Multicast iSCSI, so that only 1 writing from initiator be propagated by network to all suscribed targets, with dynamic suscribing and "resilvering" being delegated to remote targets. I would even prefer this behaviour already exists in ZFS :-) Please let me any comment if interested, i may send a draft for RFP... Best regards ! -- 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 ACL/ACE issues with Samba - Access Denied
I have solaris 10 set to resolve user information from my directory (ldap). I only get primary group information, not secondary. We use edirectory via ldap and the attribute for group membersip is not the one that solaris looks for. If you run the id on the box, does it show the users secondary groups? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Availability: ZFS needs to handle disk removal / driver failure better
Well, you're not alone in wanting to use ZFS and iSCSI like that, and in fact my change request suggested that this is exactly one of the things that could be addressed: "The idea is really a two stage RFE, since just the first part would have benefits. The key is to improve ZFS availability, without affecting it's flexibility, bringing it on par with traditional raid controllers. A. Track response times, allowing for lop sided mirrors, and better failure detection. Many people have requested this since it would facilitate remote live mirrors. B. Use response times to timeout devices, dropping them to an interim failure mode while waiting for the official result from the driver. This would prevent redundant pools hanging when waiting for a single device." Unfortunately if your links tend to drop, you really need both parts. However, if this does get added to ZFS, all you would then need is standard monitoring on the ZFS pool. That would notify you when any device fails and the pool goes to a degraded state, making it easy to spot when either the remote mirrors or local storage are having problems. I'd have thought it would make monitoring much simpler. And if this were possible, I would hope that you could configure iSCSI devices to automatically reconnect and resilver too, so the system would be self repairing once faults are corrected, but I haven't gone so far as to test that yet. -- 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 ACL/ACE issues with Samba - Access Denied
> If you run the id on the box, does it show the users > secondary groups? id never shows secondary groups. Use id -a Nils ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZPool and Filesystem Sizing - Best Practices?
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Anton B. Rang wrote: >> If there is a zfs implementation bug it could perhaps be more risky >> to have five pools rather than one. > > Kind of goes both ways. You're perhaps 5 times as likely to wind up with a > damaged pool, but if that ever happens, there's only 1/5 as much data to > restore. One more question regarding this - has anybody on this list had (or heard of) a zpool corruption that prevented access to all data in the pool? We're probably going to have a second X4540 here and push snapshots to it daily, so as a last resort we'd have access to the data on another machine. I'd like to minimise the chance of problems on the live machine first though :) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Tool to figure out optimum ZFS recordsize for a Mail server Maildir tree?
Le 22 oct. 08 à 21:02, Bill Sommerfeld a écrit : > On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 09:46 -0700, Mika Borner wrote: >> If I turn zfs compression on, does the recordsize influence the >> compressratio in anyway? > > zfs conceptually chops the data into recordsize chunks, then > compresses > each chunk independently, allocating on disk only the space needed to > store each compressed block. > > On average, I'd expect to get a better compression ratio with a larger > block size since typical compression algorithms will have more > chance to > find redundancy in a larger block of text. > With gzip yes, but with default compression, I believe lzjb is looking for short 'repeating byte pattern'. It should not depend much on recordsize. -r > as always your mileage may vary. > > - Bill > > ___ > 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] ZPool and Filesystem Sizing - Best Practices?
Yes, several people have had problems. Many, many people without redundancy in their pools have had problems, and I've also seen one or two cases of quite large pools going corrupt (including at least one on a thumper I believe). I think they were all a good while ago now (9 months or so), and ZFS appears much more mature these days. I suspect the risk now is relatively low, but ZFS is still a pretty young filesystem, and one that's undergoing rapid development. I'm happily storing production data on ZFS, but I do have backups of everything stored on a non-ZFS filesystem. -- 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] Availability: ZFS needs to handle disk removal / driver failure better
> Well, you're not alone in wanting to use ZFS and > iSCSI like that, and in fact my change request > suggested that this is exactly one of the things that > could be addressed: Thank you ! Yes, this was also to tell you that you are not alone :-) I agree completely with you on your technical points ! -- 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] ZPool and Filesystem Sizing - Best Practices?
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Paul Sobey wrote: > One more question regarding this - has anybody on this list had (or heard > of) a zpool corruption that prevented access to all data in the pool? If you check the list archives, you will find a number of such cases. Usually they occured on non-Sun hardware. In some cases people lost their pools after a BIOS upgrade which commandeered a few more disk bytes for itself. In most cases the pool was recoverable with some assistance from Sun tech support. It is important to avoid hardware which writes data in the wrong order, or does not obey cache control and cache flush commands. As one would expect, Sun hardware is "well behaved". Bob == Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] 2008.11 rc2 weird zpool import behaviour
Hello, after installing 2008.11 and accidently locking up the administrative account by giving it userid=0, I cannot login to our machine (only role based access allowed). So I tried it the usual way: boot from 2008.11 live-cd, then 'zpool import -f -R /a rpool' or 'zpool import -f -R /a 23532453453 root_pool' (tried both variants, id is fake). The weird effect is that, although zfs list shows that rpool/ROOT/opensolaris is mounted on /a, I can only see a few directories (/a/export/home/,/a/rpool), but no files at all, and also not the usual root directories ! So no way to change /a/etc/shadow and /a/etc/passwd. Booting again from the disk, everything is fine (except no login possible...). What's going on here ? A rc2 bug ? Any other ways to get the pool into a usable state ? -- 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] 2008.11 rc2 weird zpool import behaviour
I found I had to set the mount point property for the rpool/ROOT/opensolaris filesystem; zfs mount it and do the edits and then unmount and reset the mount point property back to root (I made the mistake of messing up the user_attr file). Udo Grabowski wrote: > Hello, > after installing 2008.11 and accidently locking up the administrative account > by > giving it userid=0, I cannot login to our machine (only role based access > allowed). > So I tried it the usual way: boot from 2008.11 live-cd, then 'zpool import -f > -R /a rpool' > or 'zpool import -f -R /a 23532453453 root_pool' (tried both variants, id > is fake). > > The weird effect is that, although zfs list shows that rpool/ROOT/opensolaris > is mounted > on /a, I can only see a few directories (/a/export/home/,/a/rpool), but no > files at all, and > also not the usual root directories ! So no way to change /a/etc/shadow and > /a/etc/passwd. > Booting again from the disk, everything is fine (except no login > possible...). > > What's going on here ? A rc2 bug ? Any other ways to get the pool into a > usable state ? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 2008.11 rc2 weird zpool import behaviour
Am I right in thinking that it hadn't mounted the pool, but a directory of the same name was there? -- 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] Best practice for swap and root pool
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:58:20 + Chris Ridd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not 100% convinced it'll boot if half the mirror's not there, Believe me, it will (been there done that). You -have- to make sure though that both disks have installgrub ... And that your bios is able to boot from the other disk. You can always try it ou by pulling a plug from one of the disks ;-) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS sxce snv101 ++ + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Separate /var
Hi Folks, I'm currently working with an organisation who want use ZFS for their full zones. Storage is SAN attached, and they also want to create a separate /var for each zone, which causes issues when the zone is installed. They believe that a separate /var is still good practice. What are others doing in this space? Any pointers appreciated. Thanks Eddie ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Separate /var
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008, Edward Irvine wrote: > What are others doing in this space? Educate them how the world has changed! A separate /var is even less necessary with ZFS than with UFS. -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA CEO, My Online Home Inventory URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer http://www.myonlinehomeinventory.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Separate /var
On Fri 28/11/08 09:39 , Edward Irvine [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: > Hi Folks, > > I'm currently working with an organisation who want use ZFS for their > full zones. Storage is SAN attached, and they also want to create a > separate /var for each zone, which causes issues when the zone is > installed. They believe that a separate /var is still good practice. > Is it even possible? Well I guess anything is possible, but I doubt such a configuration would be supported or survive an upgrade. > What are others doing in this space? > I usually create a filesystem for each zone's root and either use loopback mounts or ZFS data sets for any additional space (/export/home for instance) required in the zone. I can then apply quotas to these filesystems if required. -- Ian ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Micron - 1GB/s PCIe SSD's
... here's hoping they release it with Solaris drivers http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121698&intsrc=hm_list -- 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] Separate /var
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:39:43AM +1100, Edward Irvine wrote: > > I'm currently working with an organisation who want use ZFS for their > full zones. Storage is SAN attached, and they also want to create a > separate /var for each zone, which causes issues when the zone is > installed. They believe that a separate /var is still good practice. If your mount options are different for /var and /, you will need a separate filesystem. In our case, we use `setuid=off' and `devices=off' on /var for security reasons. We do the same thing for home directories and /tmp . -- -Gary Mills--Unix Support--U of M Academic Computing and Networking- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 2008.11 rc2 weird zpool import behaviour
Tried setting the mountpoint explicitly already, gives exactly the same behaviour. There wasn't a directory of the same name (tried with /a existing and /a not existing before the import/mountpoint setting), and zpool status and zfs list show exactly what is expected. But only the mountpoints under /a and a few of the subdirectories there appear, not a single file. zpool status before the import was empty, so no duplicate rpool. Tried setting mountpoint to legacy and mounted by hand somewhere, exactly the same strange appearance. We've root on zfs over a year now with SXDE 01/08 (fiddled at lot with zfs to get it running before it was officially possible), and never have seen such a behaviour. -- 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] Separate /var
On Fri 28/11/08 10:53 , Gary Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:39:43AM +1100, Edward Irvine wrote: > > > > I'm currently working with an organisation who > want use ZFS for their > full zones. Storage is SAN attached, and they > also want to create a > separate /var for each zone, which causes issues > when the zone is > installed. They believe that a separate /var is > still good practice. > If your mount options are different for /var and /, you will need > a separate filesystem. In our case, we use `setuid=off' and > `devices=off' on /var for security reasons. We do the same thing > for home directories and /tmp . > For zones? -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 2008.11 rc2 weird zpool import behaviour
Udo Grabowski wrote: > Tried setting the mountpoint explicitly already, gives exactly the same > behaviour. There wasn't a directory of the same name (tried with /a existing > and /a not existing before the import/mountpoint setting), and zpool status > and zfs list show exactly what is expected. But only the mountpoints under /a > and a few of the subdirectories there appear, not a single file. zpool status > before the > import was empty, so no duplicate rpool. Tried setting mountpoint to legacy > and mounted by hand somewhere, exactly the same strange appearance. > We've root on zfs over a year now with SXDE 01/08 (fiddled at lot with zfs to > get it > running before it was officially possible), and never have seen such a > behaviour. That is odd - I just went through it here on a virtualbox system: o boot from the iso image o fire up an terminal window and did the following: zpool import -f rpool o cd /rpool and this only shows two directories for boot and etc o zfs set mountpoint=/foo rpool/ROOT/opensolaris o zfs mount rpool/ROOT/opensolaris o ls /foo and all the pieces are there Is this what you are doing ? Note /foo did not exist. ta pete ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best practice for swap and root pool
dick hoogendijk wrote: On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:58:20 + Chris Ridd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm not 100% convinced it'll boot if half the mirror's not there, Believe me, it will (been there done that). You -have- to make sure though that both disks have installgrub ... And that your bios is able to boot from the other disk. You can always try it ou by pulling a plug from one of the disks ;-) Or less drastic, use the BIOS to point to one of the disks in the mirror to boot from. If you have used installgrub to setup the stage 1&2 for both boot drives you can boot from either one. -- Regards Peter Brouwer, Sun Microsystems Linlithgow Principal Storage Architect, ABCP DRII Consultant Office:+44 (0) 1506 672767 Mobile:+44 (0) 7720 598226 Skype :flyingdutchman_,flyingdutchman_l smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] cpio silently not copying files > 2GB -- seriously!?
Hi, I was just restoring a bunch of files from backup using find|cpio when I noticed that cpio does not copy files >2GB properly. The resulting files were "oddly" sized ( % 2GB, perhaps?). Even more alarming, cpio did not warn in any way about not copying the file correctly! The cpio command exited normally ($? was 0). Output from "-pmdu" did not indicate any errors! Fortunately, I happened to run 'du' and noticed it giving different sizes for the restored and "backup" directories, I've since re-restored the affected files using plain cp. I guess I was lucky not doing the backup using cpio! :( Seriously bad behaviour here -- something that really should be fixed for e.g "Solaris 11". FWIW, I know about "largefile(5)", but I don't think failing silently like this (copying "some" data) can be considered proper behaviour in any scenario. (This probably does not strictly belong in zfs-discuss, although for me both the backup media and the destination pool to restore to are ZFS.) /H ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Separate /var
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:19:14AM +1300, Ian Collins wrote: > On Fri 28/11/08 10:53 , Gary Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 07:39:43AM +1100, Edward Irvine wrote: > > > > > > I'm currently working with an organisation who > > want use ZFS for their > full zones. Storage is SAN attached, and they > > also want to create a > separate /var for each zone, which causes issues > > when the zone is > installed. They believe that a separate /var is > > still good practice. > > If your mount options are different for /var and /, you will need > > a separate filesystem. In our case, we use `setuid=off' and > > `devices=off' on /var for security reasons. We do the same thing > > for home directories and /tmp . > > > For zones? Sure, if you require different mount options in the zones. -- -Gary Mills--Unix Support--U of M Academic Computing and Networking- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cpio silently not copying files > 2GB -- seriously!?
On Fri 28/11/08 13:09 , Håkan Olsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: > Hi, > > I was just restoring a bunch of files from backup using find|cpio when I > noticed that cpio does not copy files >2GB properly. The resulting files > were "oddly" sized ( % 2GB, perhaps?). > > Even more alarming, cpio did not warn in any way about not copying the > file correctly! The cpio command exited normally ($? was 0). Output from > "-pmdu" did not indicate any errors! > > Seriously bad behaviour here -- something that really should be fixed for > e.g "Solaris 11". > See the rather confusing comment at the end of the cpio man page: The new pax(1) format, with a command that supports it (for example, pax , tar, or cpio), should be used for large files. The cpio command is no longer part of the current POSIX standard and is deprecated in favor of pax. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Micron - 1GB/s PCIe SSD's
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... here's hoping they release it with Solaris drivers > > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121698&intsrc=hm_list > -- > So it's fusionIO? Here's hoping they can come in with a realistic price for home enthusiasts... I highly doubt that will ever happen though. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Availability: ZFS needs to handle disk removal / driver failure better
Ross wrote: > Well, you're not alone in wanting to use ZFS and iSCSI like that, and in fact > my change request suggested that this is exactly one of the things that could > be addressed: > > "The idea is really a two stage RFE, since just the first part would have > benefits. The key is to improve ZFS availability, without affecting it's > flexibility, bringing it on par with traditional raid controllers. > > A. Track response times, allowing for lop sided mirrors, and better failure > detection. I've never seen a study which shows, categorically, that disk or network failures are preceded by significant latency changes. How do we get "better failure detection" from such measurements? > Many people have requested this since it would facilitate remote live > mirrors. > At a minimum, something like VxVM's preferred plex should be reasonably easy to implement. > B. Use response times to timeout devices, dropping them to an interim > failure mode while waiting for the official result from the driver. This > would prevent redundant pools hanging when waiting for a single device." > I don't see how this could work except for mirrored pools. Would that carry enough market to be worthwhile? -- richard > Unfortunately if your links tend to drop, you really need both parts. > However, if this does get added to ZFS, all you would then need is standard > monitoring on the ZFS pool. That would notify you when any device fails and > the pool goes to a degraded state, making it easy to spot when either the > remote mirrors or local storage are having problems. I'd have thought it > would make monitoring much simpler. > > And if this were possible, I would hope that you could configure iSCSI > devices to automatically reconnect and resilver too, so the system would be > self repairing once faults are corrected, but I haven't gone so far as to > test that yet. > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Micron - 1GB/s PCIe SSD's
I would imagine that 1GB/s is probably overkill for most home enthusiasts Tim. I would have thought something like the ACARD ram disk would be fast enough for that market: http://www.mars-tech.com/ans-9010b.htm. -- 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] Availability: ZFS needs to handle disk removal / driver failure better
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:05 AM, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ross wrote: >> >> Well, you're not alone in wanting to use ZFS and iSCSI like that, and in >> fact my change request suggested that this is exactly one of the things that >> could be addressed: >> >> "The idea is really a two stage RFE, since just the first part would have >> benefits. The key is to improve ZFS availability, without affecting it's >> flexibility, bringing it on par with traditional raid controllers. >> >> A. Track response times, allowing for lop sided mirrors, and better >> failure detection. > > I've never seen a study which shows, categorically, that disk or network > failures are preceded by significant latency changes. How do we get > "better failure detection" from such measurements? Not preceded by as such, but a disk or network failure will certainly cause significant latency changes. If the hardware is down, there's going to be a sudden, and very large change in latency. Sure, FMA will catch most cases, but we've already shown that there are some cases where it doesn't work too well (and I would argue that's always going to be possible when you are relying on so many different types of driver). This is there to ensure that ZFS can handle *all* cases. >> Many people have requested this since it would facilitate remote live >> mirrors. >> > > At a minimum, something like VxVM's preferred plex should be reasonably > easy to implement. > >> B. Use response times to timeout devices, dropping them to an interim >> failure mode while waiting for the official result from the driver. This >> would prevent redundant pools hanging when waiting for a single device." >> > > I don't see how this could work except for mirrored pools. Would that > carry enough market to be worthwhile? > -- richard I have to admit, I've not tested this with a raided pool, but since all ZFS commands hung when my iSCSI device went offline, I assumed that you would get the same effect of the pool hanging if a raid-z2 pool is waiting for a response from a device. Mirrored pools do work particularly well with this since it gives you the potential to have remote mirrors of your data, but if you had a raid-z2 pool, you still wouldn't want that hanging if a single device failed. I will go and test the raid scenario though on a current build, just to be sure. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs znode changes getting lost
thanx a lot perrin it really helped a lot. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
