Re: [zfs-discuss] Who owns the dataset?
On 7/16/10 4:33 PM -0700 Johnson Earls wrote: On 07/16/10 10:30 AM, Lori Alt wrote: You can also run through the zones, doing 'zoneconfig -z info' commands to look for datasets delegated to each zone. That's not necessarily the current owner though, is it? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Who owns the dataset?
Lori, Thanks for the reply. By "floating" I mean we have a set of scripts that will shut down a zone, export all the ZFS pools attached to that zone, modify the zone config to not have those datasets associated anymore, then, on another system, import the ZFS pools, modify the new zone's config to include those datasets, and boot the zone. I'll look at using the mount-option thing, thanks for that. - Johnson On 07/16/10 10:30 AM, Lori Alt wrote: > > On 07/14/10 05:45 PM, Johnson Earls wrote: > > Hello, > > > > How would I go about finding out which zone owns a particular dataset from > > a script running in the > global zone? > > > > > We have some ZFS datasets that can "float" between zones on different > > servers in order to provide > a manual application failover mechanism. > > I don't know what you mean by datasets "floating" between zones. In > order for a zone to access a dataset, the dataset must have been > delegated to the zone, which requires some explicit action. > > But to answer your specific question, if you look at a mounted dataset's > entry in /etc/mnttab: > > rpool/z2-del/myz2zfs > rw,nodevices,setuid,nonbmand,exec,xattr,atime,zone=z2,dev=16d001c > 1279296850 > > you'll see a 'zone=' entry if the zone is delegated to the zone > (assuming it's mounted at all). > > Oddly, enough, the "zone=" string doesn't appear for the zone > root. I'm not sure if that's intentional or an oversight. But in any > case, it doesn't appear that you're looking for zone roots. > > You can also run through the zones, doing 'zoneconfig -z info' > commands to look for datasets delegated to each zone. > > > Lori - Johnson jea...@responsys.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] preparing for future drive additions
On Jul 14, 2010, at 11:44 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > On Wed, July 14, 2010 14:58, Daniel Taylor wrote: > >> I'm about the build a opensolaris NAS system, currently we have two drives >> and are planning on adding two more at a later date (2TB enterprise level >> HDD are a bit expensive!). > > Do you really need them? Now? Maybe 1TB drives are good now, and then > add a pair of 2TB in a year? I was recently at a large computer retailer and 1TB drives were not available for purchase. 2TB 3.5" for $110 and 500GB 2.5" drives were available. As David notes, if you plan to expand, plan to expand by replacing drives or adding pairs. This will be very cost efficient when your data space needs are modest. -- richard -- Richard Elling rich...@nexenta.com +1-760-896-4422 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Is there any support for bi-directional synchronization in zfs?
On Jul 14, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Peter Taps wrote: > Folks, > > This is probably a very naive question. > > Is it possible to set zfs for bi-directional synchronization of data across > two locations? I am thinking this is almost impossible. Consider two files A > and B at two different sites. There are three possible cases that require > synchronization: > > 1. A is changed. B is unchanged. > 2. B is changed. A is unchanged. > 3. A is changed. B is changed. > > While it is possible to achieve synchronization for the first two cases, case > 3 requires special merging and is almost impossible. It is certainly not impossible, people do this every day. > I am thinking it is the same problem even at the block level. No, it is just much more difficult at the block level because blocks do not have context. Your view of A and B requires some level of context above the block level. So you must do the reconciliation at that level, not below. Hence the recommendations to use unison, hg, svn, or even OpenOffice which have the tools at the contextual level of the data to reconcile differences between two objects. > Even to achieve 1 and 2 is a bit tricky given the latency between the two > sites. Is there anything in zfs that makes it easier? Don't try to solve this problem by removing data contextual knowledge, try to solve it by increasing data context. -- richard -- Richard Elling rich...@nexenta.com +1-760-896-4422 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
On 7/16/10 3:07 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: On Fri, July 16, 2010 14:07, Frank Cusack wrote: On 7/16/10 12:02 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: It would be nice to have applications request to be notified before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested notification have acknowledged that they're ready, the snapshot would be taken; and then another notification sent that it was taken. Prior to indicating they were ready, the apps could have achieved a logically consistent on disk state. That would eliminate the need for (for example) separate database backups, if you could have a snapshot with the database on it in a consistent state. Any software dependent on cooperating with the filesystem to ensure that the files are consistent in a snapshot fails the cord-yank test (which is equivalent to the "processor explodes" test and the "power supply bursts into flames" test and the "disk drive shatters" test and so forth). It can't survive unavoidable physical-world events. It can, if said software can roll back to the last consistent state. That may or may not be "recent" wrt a snapshot. If an application is very active, it's possible that many snapshots may be taken, none of which are actually in a state the application can use to recover from. Rendering snapshots much less effective. Wait, if the application can in fact survive the "cord pull" test then by definition of "survive", all the snapshots are useful. Useful, yes, but you missed my point about recency. They may not be as useful as they could be, and depending on how data changes older data or transactions may be unrecoverable due to an inconsistent snapshot. They'll be everything consistent that was committed to disk by the time of the yank (or snapshot); which, it seems to me, is the very best that anybody could hope for. This is true only if transactions are journaled somehow, and thus a snapshot could return the application to it's current state -1. Also, just administratively, and perhaps legally, it's highly desirable to know that the time of a snapshot is the actual time that application state can be recovered to or referenced to. Maybe, but since that's not achievable for your core corporate asset (the database), I think of it as a pipe dream rather than a goal. Ah, because we can't achieve this ideal for some very critical application, we shouldn't bother getting there for other applications. Also, if an application cannot survive a cord-yank test, it might be even more highly desirable that snapshots be a stable that from which the application can be restarted. If it cannot survive a cord-yank test, it should not be run, ever, by anybody, for any purpose more important than playing a game. Nice ideal world you live in ... wish I were there. It's not as if a notification mechanism somehow makes things worse for applications that don't use it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended RAM for ZFS on various platforms
"Sam Fourman Jr." wrote: > using FreeBSD 9 w/ ZFSv15 using default settings, nothing in loader.conf > or nothing in sysctl.conf and a GENERIC kernel > > 12GB of memory seems to be all ZFS wanted to use, I have tried > machines with 32GB > but zfs never wants to use more unless you play with loader.conf settings On Solaris on a SunFire X4540 with 64 GB, I've seen ZFS RAM usage far beyond 32 GB without doing anything. Do you know whether this FreeBSD behavior is intended? Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended RAM for ZFS on various platforms
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Michael Johnson wrote: > I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to > double-check > how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says you > can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen > someone > claim that you need at least 4 GB. Does anyone here know how much RAM FreeBSD > would need in this case? > > Likewise, how much RAM does OpenSolaris need for stability when running ZFS? > How about other OpenSolaris-based OSs, like NexentaStor? (My searching found > that OpenSolaris recommended at least 1 GB, while NexentaStor said 2 GB was > okay, 4 GB was better. I'd be interested in hearing your input, though.) > > If it matters, I'm currently planning on RAID-Z2 with 4x500GB consumer-grade > SATA drives. (I know that's not a very efficient configuration, but I'd > really > like the redundancy of RAID-Z2 and I just don't need more than 1 TB of > available > storage right now, or for the next several years.) This is on an AMD64 > system, > and the OS in question will be running inside of VirtualBox, with raw access > to > the drives. > > Thanks, > Michael > using FreeBSD 9 w/ ZFSv15 using default settings, nothing in loader.conf or nothing in sysctl.conf and a GENERIC kernel 12GB of memory seems to be all ZFS wanted to use, I have tried machines with 32GB but zfs never wants to use more unless you play with loader.conf settings if I was building a small office NAS 12GB would be where I would start. I run mostly whitebox hardware (asus motherboards desktop disks etc..) in my experience, I have found FreeBSD to be much more stable than Open Solaris but to be fair, I understand FreeBSD, and I have only loaded Open solaris with default settings and the most ram I ever gave open Solaris is a 8GB machine so if you wanted to go with Open solaris (for dedupe and such) I would use a Lot of ram from many people I have talked to 32GB of memory and Open Soalris is really stable -- Sam Fourman Jr. Fourman Networks http://www.fourmannetworks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended RAM for ZFS on various platforms
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Michael Johnson wrote: Just curious, why do you say I'd be able to get away with less RAM in FreeBSD (as compared to NexentaStor, I'm assuming)? I don't know tons about the OSs in question; is FreeBSD just leaner in general? The FreeBSD OS itself is normally leaner but FreeBSD plus zfs is not (yet) as memory efficient as Solaris. Solaris and zfs do the Vulcan mind-meld when it comes to memory but FreeBSD does not. 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] Legality and the future of zfs...
On Fri, July 16, 2010 14:07, Frank Cusack wrote: > On 7/16/10 12:02 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >>> It would be nice to have applications request to be notified >>> before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested >>> notification have acknowledged that they're ready, the snapshot >>> would be taken; and then another notification sent that it was >>> taken. Prior to indicating they were ready, the apps could >>> have achieved a logically consistent on disk state. That >>> would eliminate the need for (for example) separate database >>> backups, if you could have a snapshot with the database on it >>> in a consistent state. >> >> Any software dependent on cooperating with the filesystem to ensure that >> the files are consistent in a snapshot fails the cord-yank test (which >> is >> equivalent to the "processor explodes" test and the "power supply bursts >> into flames" test and the "disk drive shatters" test and so forth). It >> can't survive unavoidable physical-world events. > > It can, if said software can roll back to the last consistent state. > That may or may not be "recent" wrt a snapshot. If an application is > very active, it's possible that many snapshots may be taken, none of > which are actually in a state the application can use to recover from. > Rendering snapshots much less effective. Wait, if the application can in fact survive the "cord pull" test then by definition of "survive", all the snapshots are useful. They'll be everything consistent that was committed to disk by the time of the yank (or snapshot); which, it seems to me, is the very best that anybody could hope for. > Also, just administratively, and perhaps legally, it's highly desirable > to know that the time of a snapshot is the actual time that application > state can be recovered to or referenced to. Maybe, but since that's not achievable for your core corporate asset (the database), I think of it as a pipe dream rather than a goal. > Also, if an application cannot survive a cord-yank test, it might be > even more highly desirable that snapshots be a stable that from which > the application can be restarted. If it cannot survive a cord-yank test, it should not be run, ever, by anybody, for any purpose more important than playing a game. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended RAM for ZFS on various platforms
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 11:57 -0700, Michael Johnson wrote: > us, why do you say I'd be able to get away with less RAM in FreeBSD > (as compared to NexentaStor, I'm assuming)? I don't know tons about > the OSs in > question; is FreeBSD just leaner in general? Compared to Solaris, in my estimation, yes, its a little leaner. Not necessarily a lot -- the bulk of memory consumption these days is ZFS and applications (Firefox!) - Garrett ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 1tb SATA drives
Arne Jansen wrote: Jordan McQuown wrote: I’m curious to know what other people are running for HD’s in white box systems? I’m currently looking at Seagate Barracuda’s and Hitachi Deskstars. I’m looking at the 1tb models. These will be attached to an LSI expander in a sc847e2 chassis driven by an LSI 9211-8i HBA. This system will be used as a large storage array for backups and archiving. I wouldn't recommend using desktop drives in a server RAID. They can't handle the vibrations well that are present in a server. I'd recommend at least the Seagate Constellation or the Hitachi Ultrastar, though I haven't tested the Deskstar myself. I've been using a couple of 1TB Hitachi Ultrastars for about a year with no problem. I don't think mine are still available, but I expect they have something equivalent. The pool is scrubbed 3 times a week which takes nearly 19 hours now, and hammers the heads quite hard. I keep meaning to reduce the scrub frequency now it's getting to take so long, but haven't got around to it. What I really want is pause/resume scrub, and the ability to trigger the pause/resume from the screensaver (or something similar). -- Andrew Gabriel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
On 7/16/10 12:02 PM -0500 David Dyer-Bennet wrote: It would be nice to have applications request to be notified before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested notification have acknowledged that they're ready, the snapshot would be taken; and then another notification sent that it was taken. Prior to indicating they were ready, the apps could have achieved a logically consistent on disk state. That would eliminate the need for (for example) separate database backups, if you could have a snapshot with the database on it in a consistent state. Any software dependent on cooperating with the filesystem to ensure that the files are consistent in a snapshot fails the cord-yank test (which is equivalent to the "processor explodes" test and the "power supply bursts into flames" test and the "disk drive shatters" test and so forth). It can't survive unavoidable physical-world events. It can, if said software can roll back to the last consistent state. That may or may not be "recent" wrt a snapshot. If an application is very active, it's possible that many snapshots may be taken, none of which are actually in a state the application can use to recover from. Rendering snapshots much less effective. Also, just administratively, and perhaps legally, it's highly desirable to know that the time of a snapshot is the actual time that application state can be recovered to or referenced to. Also, if an application cannot survive a cord-yank test, it might be even more highly desirable that snapshots be a stable that from which the application can be restarted. A notification mechanism is pretty desirable, IMHO. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended RAM for ZFS on various platforms
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Michael Johnson wrote: > I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to > double-check > how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says you > can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen > someone > claim that you need at least 4 GB. Does anyone here know how much RAM FreeBSD > would need in this case? There's no such thing as "too much RAM" when it comes to ZFS. The more RAM you add to the system, the better it will perform. ZFS will use all the RAM you give it for the ARC, enabling it to cache more and more data. On the flip side, if you spend enough time tuning ZFS and FreeBSD, you can use ZFS on a system with 512 MB of RAM (there are reports on the FreeBSD mailing lists of various people doing thing on single-drive laptops). However, the "rule of thumb" for ZFS is 2 GB of RAM as a bare minimum, using the 64-bit version of FreeBSD. The "sweet spot" is 4 GB of RAM. But, more is always better. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended RAM for ZFS on various platforms
Garrett D'Amore wrote: >On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 10:24 -0700, Michael Johnson wrote: >> I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to >>double-check >> how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says >you >> can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen >>someone >> claim that you need at least 4 GB. Does anyone here know how much RAM >FreeBSD >> would need in this case? >> >> Likewise, how much RAM does OpenSolaris need for stability when running ZFS? >> How about other OpenSolaris-based OSs, like NexentaStor? (My searching >found >> that OpenSolaris recommended at least 1 GB, while NexentaStor said 2 GB was >> okay, 4 GB was better. I'd be interested in hearing your input, though.) > >1GB isn't enough for a real system. 2GB is a bare minimum. If you're >going to use dedup, plan on a *lot* more. I think 4 or 8 GB are good >for a typical desktop or home NAS setup. With FreeBSD you may be able >to get away with less. (Probably, in fact.) Fortunately, I don't need deduplication; it's kind of a nice feature, but the extra RAM it would take isn't worth it. Just curious, why do you say I'd be able to get away with less RAM in FreeBSD (as compared to NexentaStor, I'm assuming)? I don't know tons about the OSs in question; is FreeBSD just leaner in general? >> If it matters, I'm currently planning on RAID-Z2 with 4x500GB consumer-grade >> SATA drives. (I know that's not a very efficient configuration, but I'd >>really >> like the redundancy of RAID-Z2 and I just don't need more than 1 TB of >>available >> storage right now, or for the next several years.) This is on an AMD64 >>system, >> and the OS in question will be running inside of VirtualBox, with raw access >>to >> the drives. > >Btw, instead of RAIDZ2, I'd recommend simply using stripe of mirrors. >You'll have better performance, and good resilience against errors. And >you can grow later as you need to by just adding additional drive pairs. A pair of mirrors would be nice, but would only protect against 100% of one drive failing, and 50% of two-drive failures. Performance is less important to me than redundancy; this setup won't be seeing tons of disk activity, but I want it to be as reliable as possible. Michael ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 1tb SATA drives
Jordan McQuown wrote: I’m curious to know what other people are running for HD’s in white box systems? I’m currently looking at Seagate Barracuda’s and Hitachi Deskstars. I’m looking at the 1tb models. These will be attached to an LSI expander in a sc847e2 chassis driven by an LSI 9211-8i HBA. This system will be used as a large storage array for backups and archiving. I wouldn't recommend using desktop drives in a server RAID. They can't handle the vibrations well that are present in a server. I'd recommend at least the Seagate Constellation or the Hitachi Ultrastar, though I haven't tested the Deskstar myself. --Arne Thanks, Jordan ___ 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] 1tb SATA drives
I'm curious to know what other people are running for HD's in white box systems? I'm currently looking at Seagate Barracuda's and Hitachi Deskstars. I'm looking at the 1tb models. These will be attached to an LSI expander in a sc847e2 chassis driven by an LSI 9211-8i HBA. This system will be used as a large storage array for backups and archiving. Thanks, Jordan ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended RAM for ZFS on various platforms
Garrett D'Amore wrote: Btw, instead of RAIDZ2, I'd recommend simply using stripe of mirrors. You'll have better performance, and good resilience against errors. And you can grow later as you need to by just adding additional drive pairs. -- Garrett Or in my case, I find my home data growth is slightly less than the rate of disk capacity increase, so every 18 months or so, I simply swap out the disks for higher capacity ones. -- Andrew Gabriel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended RAM for ZFS on various platforms
1GB isn't enough for a real system. 2GB is a bare minimum. If you're going to use dedup, plan on a *lot* more. I think 4 or 8 GB are good for a typical desktop or home NAS setup. With FreeBSD you may be able to get away with less. (Probably, in fact.) Btw, instead of RAIDZ2, I'd recommend simply using stripe of mirrors. You'll have better performance, and good resilience against errors. And you can grow later as you need to by just adding additional drive pairs. -- Garrett On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 10:24 -0700, Michael Johnson wrote: > I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to > double-check > how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says > you > can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen > someone > claim that you need at least 4 GB. Does anyone here know how much RAM > FreeBSD > would need in this case? > > Likewise, how much RAM does OpenSolaris need for stability when running ZFS? > How about other OpenSolaris-based OSs, like NexentaStor? (My searching > found > that OpenSolaris recommended at least 1 GB, while NexentaStor said 2 GB was > okay, 4 GB was better. I'd be interested in hearing your input, though.) > > If it matters, I'm currently planning on RAID-Z2 with 4x500GB consumer-grade > SATA drives. (I know that's not a very efficient configuration, but I'd > really > like the redundancy of RAID-Z2 and I just don't need more than 1 TB of > available > storage right now, or for the next several years.) This is on an AMD64 > system, > and the OS in question will be running inside of VirtualBox, with raw access > to > the drives. > > Thanks, > Michael > > > > ___ > 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] Recommended RAM for ZFS on various platforms
I'm currently planning on running FreeBSD with ZFS, but I wanted to double-check how much memory I'd need for it to be stable. The ZFS wiki currently says you can go as low as 1 GB, but recommends 2 GB; however, elsewhere I've seen someone claim that you need at least 4 GB. Does anyone here know how much RAM FreeBSD would need in this case? Likewise, how much RAM does OpenSolaris need for stability when running ZFS? How about other OpenSolaris-based OSs, like NexentaStor? (My searching found that OpenSolaris recommended at least 1 GB, while NexentaStor said 2 GB was okay, 4 GB was better. I'd be interested in hearing your input, though.) If it matters, I'm currently planning on RAID-Z2 with 4x500GB consumer-grade SATA drives. (I know that's not a very efficient configuration, but I'd really like the redundancy of RAID-Z2 and I just don't need more than 1 TB of available storage right now, or for the next several years.) This is on an AMD64 system, and the OS in question will be running inside of VirtualBox, with raw access to the drives. Thanks, Michael ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
On Fri, July 16, 2010 08:39, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: >> > It'd be handy to have a mechanism where >> applications could register for >> > snapshot notifications. When one is about to >> happen, they could be told >> > about it and do what they need to do. Once all the >> applications have >> > acknowledged the snapshot alert--and/or after a >> pre-set timeout--the file >> > system would create the snapshot, and then notify >> the applications that >> > it's done. >> > >> Why would an application need to be notified? I think >> you're under the >> misconception that something happens when a ZFS >> snapshot is taken. >> NOTHING happens when a snapshot is taken (OK, well, >> there is the >> snapshot reference name created). Blocks aren't moved >> around, we don't >> copy anything, etc. Applications have no need to "do >> anything" before a >> snapshot it taken. > > It would be nice to have applications request to be notified > before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested > notification have acknowledged that they're ready, the snapshot > would be taken; and then another notification sent that it was > taken. Prior to indicating they were ready, the apps could > have achieved a logically consistent on disk state. That > would eliminate the need for (for example) separate database > backups, if you could have a snapshot with the database on it > in a consistent state. Any software dependent on cooperating with the filesystem to ensure that the files are consistent in a snapshot fails the cord-yank test (which is equivalent to the "processor explodes" test and the "power supply bursts into flames" test and the "disk drive shatters" test and so forth). It can't survive unavoidable physical-world events. Conversely, any scheme for a program writing to its files that PASSES those tests will be fine with arbitrary snapshots, too. For that matter, remember that the "snapshot" may be taken on a zfs server on another continent which is making the storage available via iScsi; there's currently no notification channel to tell the software the snapshot is happening. -- David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Who owns the dataset?
On 07/14/10 05:45 PM, Johnson Earls wrote: Hello, How would I go about finding out which zone owns a particular dataset from a script running in the global zone? We have some ZFS datasets that can "float" between zones on different servers in order to provide a manual application failover mechanism. I don't know what you mean by datasets "floating" between zones. In order for a zone to access a dataset, the dataset must have been delegated to the zone, which requires some explicit action. But to answer your specific question, if you look at a mounted dataset's entry in /etc/mnttab: rpool/z2-del/myz2zfs rw,nodevices,setuid,nonbmand,exec,xattr,atime,zone=z2,dev=16d001c 1279296850 you'll see a 'zone=' entry if the zone is delegated to the zone (assuming it's mounted at all). Oddly, enough, the "zone=" string doesn't appear for the zone root. I'm not sure if that's intentional or an oversight. But in any case, it doesn't appear that you're looking for zone roots. You can also run through the zones, doing 'zoneconfig -z info' commands to look for datasets delegated to each zone. Lori I've got scripts that gather disk usage and i/o statistics per dataset, but I'd like to make those statistics available in the zone which owns the dataset, rather than the global zone (which is where the dtrace script has to run). So I'd like to be able to find out which zone owns the dataset in order to direct output into a directory within that zone. Is this possible? Thanks in advance, - Johnson jea...@responsys.com ___ 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] snapshot notification [was: Legality and the future of zfs...]
On Jul 16, 2010, at 3:39 PM, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > Of course, another approach would be for a zfs aware app to be > keeping its storage on a dedicated filesystem or zvol, and itself > control when snapshots were taken of that. As lightweight as > zvols and filesystems are under zfs, having each app that needed > such functionality have its own would be no big deal, and would > even be handy insofar as each app could create snapshots on > its own independent schedule. No new API is needed. Simply delegate to the owner of the process the ability to take snapshots. You need to do this anyway, for security purposes. Then use open() to create a file in the .zfs snapshot subdirectory. -- richard -- Richard Elling rich...@nexenta.com +1-760-896-4422 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send : invalid option 'R'
The build is : Solaris 10 8/07 s10s_u4wos_12b SPARC zfs version: v4 VER DESCRIPTION --- 1 Initial ZFS version 2 Ditto blocks (replicated metadata) 3 Hot spares and double parity RAID-Z 4 zpool history thanks, wen Brandon High wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Wenhwa Liu wrote: I'm getting invalid option error when I use '-R' option with zfs send command. What build of solaris are you using? -- Wenhwa Liu wenhwa@oracle.com Office: x84799 / 650-786-4799 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Legality and the future of zfs...
> > It'd be handy to have a mechanism where > applications could register for > > snapshot notifications. When one is about to > happen, they could be told > > about it and do what they need to do. Once all the > applications have > > acknowledged the snapshot alert--and/or after a > pre-set timeout--the file > > system would create the snapshot, and then notify > the applications that > > it's done. > > > Why would an application need to be notified? I think > you're under the > misconception that something happens when a ZFS > snapshot is taken. > NOTHING happens when a snapshot is taken (OK, well, > there is the > snapshot reference name created). Blocks aren't moved > around, we don't > copy anything, etc. Applications have no need to "do > anything" before a > snapshot it taken. It would be nice to have applications request to be notified before a snapshot is taken, and when that have requested notification have acknowledged that they're ready, the snapshot would be taken; and then another notification sent that it was taken. Prior to indicating they were ready, the apps could have achieved a logically consistent on disk state. That would eliminate the need for (for example) separate database backups, if you could have a snapshot with the database on it in a consistent state. If I undertand correctly, _that's_ what the notification mechanism on Windows achieves. Of course, another approach would be for a zfs aware app to be keeping its storage on a dedicated filesystem or zvol, and itself control when snapshots were taken of that. As lightweight as zvols and filesystems are under zfs, having each app that needed such functionality have its own would be no big deal, and would even be handy insofar as each app could create snapshots on its own independent schedule. Either way, the apps would have to be aware of how to participate in coordinating their logical consistency on disk with the snapshot (or vice versa). > > Given that snapshots will probably be more popular > in the future (WAFL > > NFS/LUNs, ZFS, Btrfs, VMware disk image snapshots, > etc.), an agreed upon > > consensus would be handy (D-Bus? POSIX?). Hypothetically, one could hide some of the details with suitable libraries and infrastructure. -- 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] Legality and the future of zfs...
> never make it any better. Just for a record: Solaris > 9 and 10 from Sun > was a plain crap to work with, and still is > inconvenient conservative > stagnationware. They won't build a free cool tools Everybody but geeks _wants_ stagnationware, if you means something that just runs. Even my old Sun Blade 100 at home still has Solaris 9 on it, because I haven't had a day to kill to split the mirror, load something newer like the last SXCE, and get everything on there working on it. (My other SPARC is running a semi-recent SXCE, and pending activation of an already installed most recent SXCE. Sitting at a Sun, I still prefer CDE to GNOME, and the best graphics card I have for that box won't work with the newer Xorg server, so I can't see putting OpenSolaris on it.) For instance, recent enough Solaris 10 updates to be able to do zfs root are pretty decent; you get into the habit of doing live upgrades even for patching, so you can minimize downtime. Hardly stagnant, considering that the initial release of Solaris 10 didn't even have zfs in it yet. > for Solaris, hence > the whole thing will turned to be a dry job for > trained monkeys > wearing suits in a corporations. Nothing more. That's > a philosophy of > last decade, but IT now is very changing and is very > different. That > is why Oracle's idea to kill community is totally > stupid. And that's > why IBM will win, because you run the same Linux on > their hardware as > you run at your home. > > Yes, Oracle will run good for a while, using the > inertia of a hype > (and latest their financial report proves that), but > soon people will > realize that Oracle is just another evil mean beast > with great > marketing and the same sh*tty products as they always > had. Buy Solaris > for any single little purpose? No way ever! I may buy > support and/or > security patches, updates. But not the OS itself. If > that is the only > option, then I'd rather stick to Linux from other > vendor, i.e. RedHat. > That will lead me to no more talk to Oracle about > software at OS > level, only applications (if I am an idiot enough to > jump into APEX or > something like that). Hence, if all I can do is talk > only about > hardware (well, not really, because no more > hardware-only support!!!), > then I'd better talk to IBM, if I need a brand and I > consider myself > too dumb to get SuperMicro instead. IBM System x3550 > M3 is still > better by characteristics than equivalent from > Oracle, it is OEM if > somebody needs that at first place and is still > cheaper than Oracle's > similar class. And IBM stuff just works great (at > least if we talk > about hardware). I'm not going to say you're wrong, because in part I agree with you. Systems people can run at home, desktops, laptops, those are all what get future mindshare and eventually get people with big bucks spending them. But the simple fact that Sun went down suggests that just being all lovey-dovey (and plenty of people thought that Sun wasn't lovey-dovey _enough_?) won't keep you in business either. [...] > > But for home users? I doubt it. I was about to > build a > > big storage box at home running OpenSolaris, I > froze that project. Mine's running SXCE, and unless I can find a solution to getting decent graphics working with Xorg on it, probably always will be. But the big (well, target 9TB redundant; presently 3TB redundant) storage is doing just fine. Being super latest and greatest just isn't necessary for that. > Same here. A lot of nice ideas and potential > open-source tools > basically frozen and I think gonna be dumped. We > (geeks) won't build > stuff for Larry just for free. We need OS back opened > in reward. So I > think OpenSolaris is pretty much game over, thanks to > the Oracle. Some > Oracle fanboys might call it a plain FUD, hope to get > updates etc, but > the reality is that Oracle to OpenSolaris is pretty > much the same what > Palm did for BeOS. > > Enjoy your last svn_134 build. > I can't rule out that possibility, but I see some reasons to think that it's worth being patient for a couple more months. As it is, I find myself updating my Mac and Windows every darn week; so I'm pretty much past getting a kick out of updating just to see what's kewl. -- 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] Legality and the future of zfs...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > > > It is true there's no new build published in the > last 3 months. But you > > can't use that to assume they're killing the > community. > > Hmm, the community seems to think they're killing the > community: > > http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/07/14/1448209 > /OpenSolaris-Governing-Board-Closing-Shop?from=rss > > > ZFS is great. It's pretty much the only reason we're > running Solaris. But I > don't have much confidence Oracle Solaris is going to > be a product I'm > going to want to run in the future. We barely put our > ZFS stuff into > production last year but quite frankly I'm already on > the lookout for > something to replace it. > > No new version of OpenSolaris (which we were about to > start migrating to). > No new update of Solaris 10. *Zero* information about > what the hell's going > on... Presumably if you have a maintenance contract or some other formal relationship, you could get an NDA briefing. Not having been to one yet myself, I don't know what that would tell you, but presumably more than without it. Still, the silence is quite unhelpful, and the apparent lack of anyone willing to recognize that, and with the authority to do anything about it, is troubling. > ZFS will surely live on as the filesystem under the > hood in the doubtlessly > forthcoming Oracle "database appliances", and I'm > sure they'll keep selling > their NAS devices. But for home users? I doubt it. I > was about to build a > big storage box at home running OpenSolaris, I froze > that project. Oracle > is all about the money. Which I guess is why they're > succeeding and Sun > failed to the point of having to sell out to them. My > home use wasn't > exactly going to make them a profit, but on the other > hand, the philosophy > that led to my not using the product at home is a > direct cause of my lack > of desire to continue using it at work, and while > we're not exactly a huge > client we've dropped a decent penny or two in Sun's > wallet over the years. FWIW, you're not the only one that's tried to make that point! > Who knows, maybe Oracle will start to play ball > before August 16th and the > OpenSolaris Governing Board won't shut themselves > down. But I wouldn't hold > my breath. Postponement of respiration pending hypothetical actions by others is seldom an effective survival strategy. Nevertheless, the zfs on my Sun Blade 2000 currently running SXCE snv_97 (pending luactivate and reboot to switch to snv_129) is doing just fine with what is presently 3TB of redundant storage, and will eventually grow to 9TB as I populate the rest of the slots in my JBOD (8 slots; 2 x 1TB mirror for root; presently also 2 x 2TB mirror for data, but that will change to 5 x 2TB raidz + 1 2TB hot spare when I can afford four more 2TB drives). I have a spare power supply and some other odds and ends for the Sun Blade 2000, so, with fingers crossed, it will run (and heat my house :-) for quite some time to come, regardless of availability of future software updates. If not, I'm sure I have an ISO of SXCE 129 or so for x86 somewhere too, which I could put on any cheap x86 box with a PCIx slot for my SAS controller, and just import the zpools and go. -- 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 mirror to RAIDz?
On 7/16/2010 5:54 AM, Ben wrote: Hi all, I currently have four drives in my OpenSolaris box. The drives are split into two mirrors, one mirror containing my rpool (disks 1& 2) and one containing other data (disks 2& 3). I'm running out of space on my data mirror and am thinking of upgrading it to two 2TB disks. I then considered replacing disk 2 with a 2TB disk and making a RAIDz from the three new drives. I know this would leave my rpool vulnerable to hard drive failure, but I've got no data on it that can't be replaced with a reinstall. Can this be done easily? Or will I have to transfer all of my data to another machine and build the RAIDz from scratch, then transfer the data back? Thanks for any advice, Ben You can't "convert" a mirror to a RAIDZ directly. In your case, however, there is a bit of slight-of-hand that can work here. Assume you have disks A, B, C, D, all the same size, where A & B are your rpool, and C & D are your datapool: # zpool detach rpool B # zpool detach datapool C # mkfile -n /foo # zpool create newpool raidz B C /foo # zpool offline newpool /foo # rsync -a /datapool/. /newpool/. (use whichever rsync options fit you best) # zpool destroy datapool # zpool replace newpool /foo D # rm /foo During this process, you will have your data on both mirrors exposed to a disk failure, and when it's complete, the rpool will of course remain unprotected. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS mirror to RAIDz?
Hi all, I currently have four drives in my OpenSolaris box. The drives are split into two mirrors, one mirror containing my rpool (disks 1 & 2) and one containing other data (disks 2 & 3). I'm running out of space on my data mirror and am thinking of upgrading it to two 2TB disks. I then considered replacing disk 2 with a 2TB disk and making a RAIDz from the three new drives. I know this would leave my rpool vulnerable to hard drive failure, but I've got no data on it that can't be replaced with a reinstall. Can this be done easily? Or will I have to transfer all of my data to another machine and build the RAIDz from scratch, then transfer the data back? Thanks for any advice, Ben -- 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] Legality and the future of zfs...
> Losing ZFS would indeed be disastrous, as it would > leave Solaris with > only the Veritas File System (VxFS) as a semi-modern > filesystem, and a > non-native FS at that (i.e. VxFS is a 3rd-party > for-pay FS, which > severely inhibits its uptake). UFS is just way to old > to be competitive > these days. Having come to depend on them, the absence of some of the features would certainly be significant. But how come everyone forgets about QFS? http://www.sun.com/storage/management_software/data_management/qfs/index.xml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QFS http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Project+samqfs/WebHome -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
