[zfs-discuss] Asymmetric mirroring
Hello everyone, I'm wondering if the following makes sense: To configure a system for high IOPS, I want to have a zpool of 15K RPM SAS drives. For high IOPS, I believe it is best to let ZFS stripe them, instead of doing a raidz1 across them. Therefore, I would like to mirror the drives for reliability. Now, I'm wondering if I can get away with using a large capacity 7200 RPM SATA drive as mirror for multiple SAS drives. For example, say I had 3 SAS drives of 150 GB each. Could I take a 500 GB SATA drive, partition it into 3 vdevs and use each one as a mirror for one SAS drive? I believe this is possible. The problem is in performance. What I want is for all reads to go to the SAS drives so that the SATA drive will only see writes. I'm hoping that due to the copy-on-write nature of ZFS, the writes will get bunched into sequential blocks, so write bandwidth will be good, even on a SATA drive. But, the reads must be kept off the SATA drive. Is there any way I can get ZFS to do that? Thanks, Monish ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Asymmetric mirroring
Use the SAS drives as l2arc for a pool on sata disks. If your l2arc is the full size of your pool, you won't see reads from the pool (once the cache is primed). If you're purchasing all the gear from new, consider whether SSD in this mode would be better than 15k sas. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ata - sata quustion
I boot my OpenSolaris 2009.06 system off ONE ata drive. I want to change that to a mirrored boot from two SATA drives. Is it possible to FIRST make a mirror of the existing ata drive PLUS one new sata drive and after resilvering, remove the ata drive and replace it with another (second) SATA one? -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] ata - sata quustion
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:24:31 +0200 dick hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl wrote: I boot my OpenSolaris 2009.06 system off ONE ata drive. I want to change that to a mirrored boot from two SATA drives. Is it possible to FIRST make a mirror of the existing ata drive PLUS one new sata drive and after resilvering, remove the ata drive and replace it with another (second) SATA one? yes. zpool attach rpool newdisk1 [twiddle thumbs] zpool replace rpool olddisk newdisk2 Also, remember to installgrub on each of the new disks James C. McPherson -- Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris Sun Microsystems http://blogs.sun.com/jmcp http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog Kernel Conference Australia - http://au.sun.com/sunnews/events/2009/kernel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Apple Removes Nearly All Reference To ZFS
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ata - sata quustion
I boot my OpenSolaris 2009.06 system off ONE ata drive. I want to change that to a mirrored boot from two SATA drives. Is it possible to FIRST make a mirror of the existing ata drive PLUS one new sata drive and after resilvering, remove the ata drive and replace it with another (second) SATA one? Yes, that's what I did. Make sure that the sata drive is at least as big as the ata drive; make sure you make the appropriate Solaris FDISK partition and don't use an EFI label (can't boot those). Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ata - sata quustion
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:52:37 +0200 casper@sun.com wrote: make sure you make the appropriate Solaris FDISK partition and don't use an EFI label (can't boot those). Thank you Casper (and James too). This EFI label is a nice reminder. Installing grub is second nature ;-) -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | nevada / OpenSolaris 2009.06 release + 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] Asymmetric mirroring
Monish Shah wrote: Hello everyone, I'm wondering if the following makes sense: To configure a system for high IOPS, I want to have a zpool of 15K RPM SAS drives. For high IOPS, I believe it is best to let ZFS stripe them, instead of doing a raidz1 across them. Therefore, I would like to mirror the drives for reliability. ok, so far. Now, I'm wondering if I can get away with using a large capacity 7200 RPM SATA drive as mirror for multiple SAS drives. For example, say I had 3 SAS drives of 150 GB each. Could I take a 500 GB SATA drive, partition it into 3 vdevs and use each one as a mirror for one SAS drive? I believe this is possible. yes, it is. The problem is in performance. What I want is for all reads to go to the SAS drives so that the SATA drive will only see writes. I'm hoping that due to the copy-on-write nature of ZFS, the writes will get bunched into sequential blocks, so write bandwidth will be good, even on a SATA drive. But, the reads must be kept off the SATA drive. Is there any way I can get ZFS to do that? What sort of performance do you need? Writes tend to be asynchronous (non-blocking) for many apps, unless your running a database or NFS server where synchronous writes are common. In the latter case, invest in a SSD for separate log. Reads tend to get cached in RAM at several places in the data path, so it is much more difficult to predict. IMHO, today, systems which only use HDDs will not be considered high performance in any case. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Asymmetric mirroring
The SATA drive will be your bottleneck, and you will lose any speed advantages of the SAS drives, especially using 3 vdevs on a single SATA disk. I am with Richard, figure out what performance you need, and build accordingly. -- 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] Apple Removes Nearly All Reference To ZFS
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS Maybe Apple will drop the server version of OS-X and will eliminate their only server hardware (Xserve) since all it manages to do is lose money for Apple and distracts from releasing the next iPhone? Only a lunatic would rely on Apple for a mission-critical server application. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, 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
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot mount '/tank/home': directory is not empty
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Arthur Bundono-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: I cant login as root anymore with su , as x user i cant execute almost anything as sys to do some maintenance , only in single mode at boot, After you log on as the use x (let's call this user arthur), see if you can run pfexec su - and if you get a # in the command prompt. If you do, then you can still rescue your data. Alternatively, boot from the Belenix live CD, run zpool import -f and see if the pool gets imported. name of system is unknown now, just got tired of this thing now, i don't want to learn solaris, dont have time for that , just wanted to use it since the broadband connection and the java environment seemed much more responsive than linux and gnome too behaves much better in OpenSolaris, on previous releases i did have sound via OSS now not anymore etc etc and a lot of small things i see changed from release 59 and dont have the time to go deeply. this snapshot thing is a killer, but i immediately run into problems with it. Snapshots are an awesome feature indeed. In case you are interested, try booting from Belenix and see if it detects your sound device. You can take this discussion to belenix-discuss, since zfs-discuss is for the zfs filesystem. thank you guys for your time and advice since it was all for free. good luck with this monster, see you all in 6 months I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss opensolaris as a monster, much less ZFS :) There's sometimes a learning curve (no matter low close to zero it may be). All you need to do, is to calmly read the instructions give earlier on this thread, and also try to use shorter sentences and a fullstop. Arthur -- -- Sriram ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Apple Removes Nearly All Reference To ZFS
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Only a lunatic would rely on Apple for a mission-critical server application. /OT It's funny, but I suspect you just called a large portion of the mac userbase lunatics.. While my reasons my differ I wouldn't disagree ;) ./C /OT ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS snapshots ignore everything in /export/....
Hi Krenz, Can you provide your zfs list output and your snapshot syntax? See the output below from my Solaris 10 5/09 system. Snapshot syntax and behavior should similar to the Solaris 10 10/08 release. When you take a snapshot of the root pool you must use the -r option to recursively snapshot descendent datasets. Thanks, Cindy # zfs list NAMEUSED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool 5.61G 61.3G94K /rpool rpool/ROOT 4.61G 61.3G18K legacy rpool/ROOT/zfsBE 4.61G 61.3G 4.61G / rpool/dump 1.00G 61.3G 1.00G - rpool/export 38K 61.3G20K /export rpool/export/home18K 61.3G18K /export/home rpool/swap 406K 61.3G 406K - # zfs snapshot -r rp...@now # zfs list NAMEUSED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool 5.61G 61.3G94K /rpool rp...@now 0 -94K - rpool/ROOT 4.61G 61.3G18K legacy rpool/r...@now 0 -18K - rpool/ROOT/zfsBE 4.61G 61.3G 4.61G / rpool/ROOT/zf...@now190K - 4.61G - rpool/dump 1.00G 61.3G 1.00G - rpool/d...@now 0 - 1.00G - rpool/export 38K 61.3G20K /export rpool/exp...@now 0 -20K - rpool/export/home18K 61.3G18K /export/home rpool/export/h...@now 0 -18K - rpool/swap 406K 61.3G 406K - Krenz von Leiberman wrote: When I take a snapshot of my rpool, (of which /export/... is a part of), ZFS ignores all the data in it and doesn't take any snapshots... How do I make it include /export in my snapshots? BTW, I'm running on Solaris 10 Update 6 (Or whatever is the first update to allow for root pools...) Thanks. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS snapshots ignore everything in /export/....
On 06/09/09 18:15, Krenz von Leiberman wrote: When I take a snapshot of my rpool, (of which /export/... is a part of), ZFS ignores all the data in it and doesn't take any snapshots... How do I make it include /export in my snapshots? BTW, I'm running on Solaris 10 Update 6 (Or whatever is the first update to allow for root pools...) Thanks. So are you doing the following? # zfs snapshot -r rp...@today If so, what is the output then of `zfs list` ? Lori ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot mount '/tank/home': directory is not empty
Something is bothering me about this thread. It seems to me that if the system provides an error message such as cannot mount '/tank/home': directory is not empty then the first plan of action should be to look and see what is there, no? The issue of overlaying mounts has existed for about 30 years and invariably one discovers that events which lead to different data in overlapping directories is the result of some sort of procedural issue. Perhaps once again, ZFS is a singing canary? -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Apple Removes Nearly All Reference To ZFS
That's quite a blanket statement. MANY companies (including Oracle) purchased Xserve RAID arrays for important applications because of their price point and capabilities. You easily could buy two Xserve RAIDs and mirror them for what comparable arrays of the time cost. -Aaron On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote: On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS Maybe Apple will drop the server version of OS-X and will eliminate their only server hardware (Xserve) since all it manages to do is lose money for Apple and distracts from releasing the next iPhone? Only a lunatic would rely on Apple for a mission-critical server application. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, 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 mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS mirrors with uncoordinated LUN snapshots (Amazon EBS)
I'm setting up OpenSolaris on Amazon EC2, and planning on using their Elastic Block Store volumes to store a persistent ZFS zpool. I'm inclined to make a mirror of two EBS volumes (essentially LUNs with snapshot features and an API for mapping/unmapping them), for better data protection. However, EC2 only lets you snapshot one volume at a time; there is no consistency group feature for taking simultaneous snapshots of the volumes comprising a zpool. Likewise, you can only map or unmap one volume at a time. My question is this: how well can ZFS deal with the mirror devices getting out of sync? For instance, if one or both of my EBS volumes are lost and I have to restore from EBS snapshots, one volume will have a newer version of the data than the other. Will ZFS be able to recognize this and safely resilver from the newer device to the older? -- 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 mirrors with uncoordinated LUN snapshots (Amazon EBS)
Clayton Wheeler wrote: I'm setting up OpenSolaris on Amazon EC2, and planning on using their Elastic Block Store volumes to store a persistent ZFS zpool. I'm inclined to make a mirror of two EBS volumes (essentially LUNs with snapshot features and an API for mapping/unmapping them), for better data protection. However, EC2 only lets you snapshot one volume at a time; there is no consistency group feature for taking simultaneous snapshots of the volumes comprising a zpool. Likewise, you can only map or unmap one volume at a time. Interesting. Let us know how it works. My question is this: how well can ZFS deal with the mirror devices getting out of sync? For instance, if one or both of my EBS volumes are lost and I have to restore from EBS snapshots, one volume will have a newer version of the data than the other. Will ZFS be able to recognize this and safely resilver from the newer device to the older? Syncing is done to a transaction group. By default, txgs are sync'ed every 5 or 30 seconds. It would be relatively easy to setup a script which would notify EBS to snap immediately after a txg commit completes. If the workload contains a lot of sync writes, special care would be needed to design the system to properly deal with the ZIL. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS mirrors with uncoordinated LUN snapshots (Amazon EBS)
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 14:18, Clayton Wheelerno-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: I'm setting up OpenSolaris on Amazon EC2, and planning on using their Elastic Block Store volumes to store a persistent ZFS zpool. I'm inclined to make a mirror of two EBS volumes (essentially LUNs with snapshot features and an API for mapping/unmapping them), for better data protection. However, EC2 only lets you snapshot one volume at a time; there is no consistency group feature for taking simultaneous snapshots of the volumes comprising a zpool. Likewise, you can only map or unmap one volume at a time. You could export the zpool (which will cause it to stop writing to disk) and then take the snapshots. This would prevent desynchronized volumes entirely. My question is this: how well can ZFS deal with the mirror devices getting out of sync? For instance, if one or both of my EBS volumes are lost and I have to restore from EBS snapshots, one volume will have a newer version of the data than the other. Will ZFS be able to recognize this and safely resilver from the newer device to the older? In my experience, ZFS doesn't have problems with this kind of scenario as long as you don't touch the snapshots before feeding both of them back into the system. That is, if you snapshot volumes A and B at different times, don't make changes to both (producing A' and B') before putting them back in a zpool. A and B will be able to form a mirror, but A' and B' will not necessarily. You should make sure that whatever application you are running forces sync of its data to disk before taking the snapshots, but you probably knew that already. Will ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot mount '/tank/home': directory is not empty
I want to thank you for your quick response. Regarding the learning curve, i really don't have enough time to go in deep of the things anymore, i just like the stability of the Solaris platform in general, and i used it at home years from now. All i need now is some out of the box installation OS. I see a lot of things have changed in OSolaris, regarding Belenix, i appreciate very much your efforts on that distro, but i don't know their internals and simply put, it is about trust and Opensolaris is supported under the Sun name, and that is enough for me. I am not a developer or sys-admin or anything connected to OS in general, i just want stability and backward compatibility. I am a old solaris lover (esp in x86) and i am waiting for it to thrive. Wish all the best to the community. Arthur PS the snapshot idea is really a killer, and monster is mentioned in a very appreciative sense. -- 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: Re-Propragate inheritable ACL permissions
Christo,
We don't have an easy way to re-propagate ACL entries on existing files
and directories.
You might try using a combination of find and chmod, similar to the
syntax below.
Which Solaris release is this? We might be able to provide better
hints if you can identify the release and the ACLs you are trying to
propagate.
Cindy
For files:
$ find . -type f -exec chmod A=...:...file_inherit:allow {} \;
For directories:
$ find . -type d -exec chmod A=...:...dir_inherit:allow {} \;
If you create a snapshot and clone of the target dataset, you could
experiment with the correct syntax.
Christo Kutrovsky wrote:
Hello,
Any hints on how to re-propagate all ACL entries from a given parent directory
down?
For example, you set your inheritable ACLs the way you want by running multiple:
chmod A+:dir_inherit/file_inherit PARRENT_DIR
Then what command you would run to add these to all already created files
*and* directories?
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS snapshot send/recv hangs X4540 servers
Brent Jones wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Richard Lowerichl...@richlowe.net wrote: Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net writes: I've had similar issues with similar traces. I think you're waiting on a transaction that's never going to come. I thought at the time that I was hitting: CR 6367701 hang because tx_state_t is inconsistent But given the rash of reports here, it seems perhaps this is something different. I, like you, hit it when sending snapshots, it seems (in my case) to be specific to incremental streams, rather than full streams, I can send seemingly any number of full streams, but incremental sends via send -i, or send -R of datasets with multiple snapshots, will get into a state like that above. -- Rich For now, back to snv_106 (the most stable build that I've seen, like it a lot) I'll open a case in the morning, and see what they suggest. After examining the dump we got from you (thanks again), we're relatively sure you are hitting 6826836 Deadlock possible in dmu_object_reclaim() This was introduced in nv_111 and fixed in nv_113. Sorry for the trouble. -tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Apple Removes Nearly All Reference To ZFS
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Blewaaronb...@gmail.com wrote: That's quite a blanket statement. MANY companies (including Oracle) purchased Xserve RAID arrays for important applications because of their price point and capabilities. You easily could buy two Xserve RAIDs and mirror them for what comparable arrays of the time cost. -Aaron I'd very much doubt that, but I guess one can always push their time budgets around ;-) Alex. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote: On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS Maybe Apple will drop the server version of OS-X and will eliminate their only server hardware (Xserve) since all it manages to do is lose money for Apple and distracts from releasing the next iPhone? Only a lunatic would rely on Apple for a mission-critical server application. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, 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 mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Josh Billings - Every man has his follies - and often they are the most interesting thing he has got. - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/josh_billings.html ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] multiple devs for rpool
As I understand it, you cannot currently use multiple disks for a rpool (IE: something similar to raid10). Are there plans to provide this functionality, and if so does anyone know what the general timeframe is? Thanks! -- 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] multiple devs for rpool
A root pool is composed of one top-level vdev, which can be a mirror (i.e. 2 or more disks). A raidz vdev is not supported for the root pool yet. It might be supported in the future, but the timeframe is unknown at this time. Lori Colleen wrote: As I understand it, you cannot currently use multiple disks for a rpool (IE: something similar to raid10). Are there plans to provide this functionality, and if so does anyone know what the general timeframe is? Thanks! ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import hangs
Hi Victor, Sorry it took a while for me to reply, I was traveling and had limited network access. 'zdb -e -bcsv -t 2435913 tank' has been running for a few days with no output...want to try something else? Here's the output of 'zdb -e -u -t 2435913 tank': Uberblock magic = 00bab10c version = 4 txg = 2435911 guid_sum = 16655261404755214374 timestamp = 1240287900 UTC = Mon Apr 20 23:25:00 2009 Thanks, Brad -- 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] multiple devs for rpool
Lori Alt wrote: A root pool is composed of one top-level vdev, which can be a mirror (i.e. 2 or more disks). A raidz vdev is not supported for the root pool yet. It might be supported in the future, but the timeframe is unknown at this time. The original poster was asking about a zpool of more than 1 mirrored pair (4 disks making up 2 mirrored pairs, for example). I don't know if that changes the answer (doubtful), but raidz/raidz2 was not being discussed. -- Carson ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] multiple devs for rpool
Carson Gaspar wrote: Lori Alt wrote: A root pool is composed of one top-level vdev, which can be a mirror (i.e. 2 or more disks). A raidz vdev is not supported for the root pool yet. It might be supported in the future, but the timeframe is unknown at this time. The original poster was asking about a zpool of more than 1 mirrored pair (4 disks making up 2 mirrored pairs, for example). I don't know if that changes the answer (doubtful), but raidz/raidz2 was not being discussed. one top-level vdev means that a root pool can be composed of no more than one mirrored pair (or mirrored triple, or whatever). That might change in the future, but there is no projected date for relaxing that constraint. Lori ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Apple Removes Nearly All Reference To ZFS
On 10-Jun-09, at 7:25 PM, Alex Lam S.L. wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Blewaaronb...@gmail.com wrote: That's quite a blanket statement. MANY companies (including Oracle) purchased Xserve RAID arrays for important applications because of their price point and capabilities. You easily could buy two Xserve RAIDs and mirror them for what comparable arrays of the time cost. -Aaron I'd very much doubt that, but I guess one can always push their time budgets around ;-) Hm, as someone who personally installed a 1st gen 1.1TB (half full) Xserve RAID + Xserve in a production environment, back when such a configuration cost AUD $40,000, I can tell you that it was child's play to set up, and ran flawlessly. The cost halved within a few months, iirc. :) --Toby Alex. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote: On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple- Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS Maybe Apple will drop the server version of OS-X and will eliminate their only server hardware (Xserve) since all it manages to do is lose money for Apple and distracts from releasing the next iPhone? Only a lunatic would rely on Apple for a mission-critical server application. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, 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 mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Josh Billings - Every man has his follies - and often they are the most interesting thing he has got. - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/josh_billings.html ___ 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] cannot mount '/tank/home': directory is not empty
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Arthur Bundono-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: I want to thank you for your quick response. Regarding the learning curve, i really don't have enough time to go in deep of the things anymore, i just like the stability of the Solaris platform in general, and i used it at home years from now. All i need now is some out of the box installation OS. I see a lot of things have changed in OSolaris, regarding Belenix, i appreciate very much your efforts on that distro, but i don't know their internals and simply put, it is about trust and Opensolaris is supported under the Sun name, and that is enough for me. Heh.. most of the OpenSolaris 2008.n distro is based on work done on Belenix. The same person who created Belenix worked closely with the OpenSolaris distro team to create that distro. We continue to help out as and when we get time out from work. I am not a developer or sys-admin or anything connected to OS in general, i just want stability and backward compatibility. I think Richard Elling pointed out something worth investigating - what does the present /export/home folder contain ? -- Sriram ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] cannot mount '/tank/home': directory is not empty
i've seen a problem where periodically a 'zfs mount -a' and sometimes a 'zpool import pool' can create what appears to be a race condition on nested mounts .. that is .. let's say that i have: FS mountpoint pool/export pool/fs1/export/home pool/fs2/export/home/bob pool/fs3/export/home/bob/stuff if pool is imported (or a mount -a is done) and somehow pool/fs3 mounts first - then it will create /export/home and /export/home/bob and pool/fs1 and pool/fs2 will fail to mount .. this seems to be happening on more recent builds, but not predictably - so i'm still trying to track down what's going on On Jun 10, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Richard Elling wrote: Something is bothering me about this thread. It seems to me that if the system provides an error message such as cannot mount '/tank/home': directory is not empty then the first plan of action should be to look and see what is there, no? The issue of overlaying mounts has existed for about 30 years and invariably one discovers that events which lead to different data in overlapping directories is the result of some sort of procedural issue. Perhaps once again, ZFS is a singing canary? -- 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] Apple Removes Nearly All Reference To ZFS
It's not pertinent to this sub-thread, but zfs (albeit read-only) is already in currently shipping MacOS 10.5. SO presumably it'll be in MacOS 10.6... -- Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
