Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On 08/13/10 09:02 PM, "C. Bergström" wrote: Erast wrote: On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they won't be releasing nightly snapshots. It appears they've stopped Illumos in its tracks before it really even got started (perhaps that explains the timing of this press release) Wrong. Be patient, with the pace of current Illumos development it soon will have all the closed binaries liberated and ready to sync up with promised ON code drops as dictated by GPL and CDDL licenses. Illumos is just a source tree at this point. You're delusional, misinformed, or have some big wonderful secret if you believe you have all the bases covered for a pure open source distribution though.. What's closed binaries liberated really mean to you? Does it mean a. You copy over the binary libCrun and continue to use some version of Sun Studio to build onnv-gate b. You debug the problems with and start to use ancient gcc-3 (at the probably expense of performance regressions which most people would find unacceptable) c. Your definition is narrow and has missed some closed binaries I think it's great people are still hopeful, working hard and going to steward this forward, but I wonder.. What pace are you referring to? The last commit to illumos-gate was 6 days ago and you're already not even keeping it in sync.. Can you even build it yet and if so where's the binaries? I was on vacation. Give me a break. There will be lots more in the coming week. - Garrett ___ 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] Opensolaris is apparently dead
2010/8/13 "C. Bergström" : > Erast wrote: >> >> >> On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote: >>> >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ >>> >>> I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't >>> get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they won't be >>> releasing nightly snapshots. It appears they've stopped Illumos in its >>> tracks before it really even got started (perhaps that explains the >>> timing of this press release) >> >> Wrong. Be patient, with the pace of current Illumos development it soon >> will have all the closed binaries liberated and ready to sync up with >> promised ON code drops as dictated by GPL and CDDL licenses. > > Illumos is just a source tree at this point. You're delusional, > misinformed, or have some big wonderful secret if you believe you have all > the bases covered for a pure open source distribution though.. > > What's closed binaries liberated really mean to you? > Currently.. i18n library. > Does it mean > a. You copy over the binary libCrun and continue to use some version of > Sun Studio to build onnv-gate > b. You debug the problems with and start to use ancient gcc-3 (at the > probably expense of performance regressions which most people would find > unacceptable) For now, the compiler is SS. > c. Your definition is narrow and has missed some closed binaries > All of them will be opened. Soon. > > I think it's great people are still hopeful, working hard and going to > steward this forward, but I wonder.. What pace are you referring to? The > last commit to illumos-gate was 6 days ago and you're already not even > keeping it in sync.. Can you even build it yet and if so where's the > binaries? > The project is a couple weeks old. There's already a webrevs for 145 and 146 merges, and another one for ksh93 port. There's been some other active discussions on develo...@lists.illumos.org. If not already, you should definitely subscribe to the lists. ~Anil http://www.illumos.org/projects/site/wiki/Mailing_Lists http://gdamore.blogspot.com/2010/08/hand-may-be-forced.html ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On 8/13/10 9:02 PM, "C. Bergström" wrote: > Erast wrote: >> >> >> On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote: >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ >>> >>> I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't >>> get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they >>> won't be >>> releasing nightly snapshots. It appears they've stopped Illumos in its >>> tracks before it really even got started (perhaps that explains the >>> timing of this press release) >> >> Wrong. Be patient, with the pace of current Illumos development it >> soon will have all the closed binaries liberated and ready to sync up >> with promised ON code drops as dictated by GPL and CDDL licenses. > Illumos is just a source tree at this point. You're delusional, > misinformed, or have some big wonderful secret if you believe you have > all the bases covered for a pure open source distribution though.. > > What's closed binaries liberated really mean to you? > > Does it mean >a. You copy over the binary libCrun and continue to use some > version of Sun Studio to build onnv-gate >b. You debug the problems with and start to use ancient gcc-3 (at > the probably expense of performance regressions which most people > would find unacceptable) >c. Your definition is narrow and has missed some closed binaries > > > I think it's great people are still hopeful, working hard and going to > steward this forward, but I wonder.. What pace are you referring to? > The last commit to illumos-gate was 6 days ago and you're already not > even keeping it in sync.. Can you even build it yet and if so where's > the binaries? Illumos is 2 weeks old. Lets cut it a little slack. :) benr. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
Erast wrote: On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they won't be releasing nightly snapshots. It appears they've stopped Illumos in its tracks before it really even got started (perhaps that explains the timing of this press release) Wrong. Be patient, with the pace of current Illumos development it soon will have all the closed binaries liberated and ready to sync up with promised ON code drops as dictated by GPL and CDDL licenses. Illumos is just a source tree at this point. You're delusional, misinformed, or have some big wonderful secret if you believe you have all the bases covered for a pure open source distribution though.. What's closed binaries liberated really mean to you? Does it mean a. You copy over the binary libCrun and continue to use some version of Sun Studio to build onnv-gate b. You debug the problems with and start to use ancient gcc-3 (at the probably expense of performance regressions which most people would find unacceptable) c. Your definition is narrow and has missed some closed binaries I think it's great people are still hopeful, working hard and going to steward this forward, but I wonder.. What pace are you referring to? The last commit to illumos-gate was 6 days ago and you're already not even keeping it in sync.. Can you even build it yet and if so where's the binaries? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
On 8/13/2010 at 8:56 PM Eric D. Mudama wrote: |On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote: |>Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of |>OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting |>and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense? | |These distributions are, in theory, the "gateway drug" where people |can experiment inexpensively to try out new technologies (ZFS, dtrace, |crossbow, comstar, etc.) and eventually step up to Oracle's "big iron" |as their business grows. = Think: strategic business advantage. Oracle are not stupid, they recognize a jewel when they see one. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Compress ratio???
I'm confused. I have compression enabled on a ZFS filesystem, which contains for all intents and purposes, just a single 20G file, and I see ... # ls -lh somefile -rw--- 1 root root 20G Aug 13 17:41 somefile # du -h somefile 5.6G somefile (Sounds like approx 25-30% of the original size to me...) # zfs get compressratio mypool/myzfs NAMEPROPERTY VALUE SOURCE mypool/myzfs compressratio 1.28x - # zfs list | grep myzfs mypool/myzfs 5.65G 3.80T 5.65G /mypool/myzfs ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack > > I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris. What rock do you live under? Very few people would bother paying for solaris/zfs if they couldn't try it for free and get a good taste of what it's valuable for. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:03, Frank Cusack wrote: On 8/13/10 3:39 PM -0500 Tim Cook wrote: Quite frankly, I think there will be an even faster decline of Solaris installed base after this move. I know I have no interest in pushing it anywhere after this mess. I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris. That's because the features that made opensolaris so attractive were the bleeding-edge zfs versions and comstar, and i don't think either had yet been backported to Solaris. I'm sure Solaris uptake would increase over time, once those features made it into the "main" OS. -- Eric D. Mudama edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote: Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense? These distributions are, in theory, the "gateway drug" where people can experiment inexpensively to try out new technologies (ZFS, dtrace, crossbow, comstar, etc.) and eventually step up to Oracle's "big iron" as their business grows. --eric -- Eric D. Mudama edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kraus > >I am looking for references of folks using ZFS with either NFS > or iSCSI as the backing store for VMware (4.x) backing store for > virtual machines. Since I had ulterior motives to test this, I spent a lot of time today working on this anyway. So I figured I might as well post some results here: #1 If there's any performance difference between iscsi vs nfs, it was undetectable to me. If there's any difference at all, nfs might be faster in some cases. #2 I previously speculated that performance of iscsi would outperform nfs, because I thought vmware would create a file on NFS and then format that file with vmfs3, thus doubling filesystem overhead. I was wrong. In reality, ESXi uses the NFS datastore "raw." Meaning, if you create some new VM named "junk" with associated disks "junk.vmdk" etc, then those files are created inside the NFS file server just like any other normal files. There is no vmfs3 overhead in between. #3 I previously believed that vmfs3 was able to handle sparse files amazingly well, like, when you create a new vmdk, it appears almost instantly regardless of size, and I believed you could copy sparse vmdk's efficiently, not needing to read all the sparse consecutive zeroes. I was wrong. In reality, vmfs3 doesn't seem to have any advantage over *any* other filesystems (ntfs, ext3, hfs+, etc) to create and occupy disk space with the sparse files. They do not copy efficiently. I found that copying a large sparse vmdk file, for all intents and purposes, works just as well inside vmfs3 as it does in nfs. Those things being said ... I couldn't find one reason at all in favor of iscsi over nfs. Except, perhaps, the authentication which may or may not be stronger security than NFS in a less-than-trusted LAN. iscsi requires more work to setup. iscsi has more restrictions on it - You have to choose a size, and can't expand it. It's formatted vmfs3, so you cannot see the contents in any way other than mounting it in esx. I could not find even one thing, to promote iscsi over nfs. Although it seems unlikely, if you wanted to disable ZIL instead of buying log devices on the ZFS host, you can easily do this for NFS, and I'm not aware of any way to do it with iscsi. Maybe you can, I don't know. I mean ... It wasn't like Mike Tyson beating up a little kid, but it was like a grown-up beating up an adolescent. ;-) Extremely one-sided as far as I can tell. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
On 8/14/10 4:01 AM +0700 "C. Bergström" wrote: Gary Mills wrote: If this information is correct, http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043 further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors. Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris with no public distributions. The community has been abandoned. It was a community of system administrators and nearly no developers. While this may make big news the real impact is probably pretty small. I agree! Source code updates will get tossed over the fence and developer partners (Intel) will still have access to onnv-gate. In a way i see this as a very good thing. It will not *force* the ^^^ You must have meant "now"? existing (small) community of companies and developers to band together to actually work together. From there the real open source momentum can happen instead of everyone depending on Sun/Oracle to give them a free lunch. The first step that I've been adamant about is making it easier for developers to play and get their hands on it.. If "we" can enable that it'll swing things around regardless of what mega-corp does or doesn't do... Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense? -frank ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On 8/13/10 3:39 PM -0500 Tim Cook wrote: Quite frankly, I think there will be an even faster decline of Solaris installed base after this move. I know I have no interest in pushing it anywhere after this mess. I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Ray Van Dolson wrote: I'm interested to see how this plays out in actuality. It almost sounded like source code wouldn't necessarily be shared until major release were made... which would obviously make it hard for third party ZFS vendors to "keep up" in the interim. You are right that this internal document does not describe when source would be released. Perhaps it might be released after every update release, or it might be released every seven years. My own feeling is that existing engineers inherited from Sun may have some strong personal feelings about this and may feel betrayed if Oracle (again) does not do what it said it was going to do. Betrayed engineers may jump ship for the competition. High caliber engineers are very difficult to obtain. 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] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:01:07PM -0700, "C. Bergström" wrote: > Gary Mills wrote: > > If this information is correct, > > > > http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043 > > > > further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors. > > Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris > > with no public distributions. The community has been abandoned. > > > It was a community of system administrators and nearly no developers. > While this may make big news the real impact is probably pretty small. > Source code updates will get tossed over the fence and developer > partners (Intel) will still have access to onnv-gate. I'm interested to see how this plays out in actuality. It almost sounded like source code wouldn't necessarily be shared until major release were made... which would obviously make it hard for third party ZFS vendors to "keep up" in the interim. I guess most of this is still hear-say at this point, but if you've read somewhere where Oracle has stated they plan to continuously share source code and updates throughout their development processes (not just at release time), it'd be good to see... > > In a way i see this as a very good thing. It will not *force* the > existing (small) community of companies and developers to band together > to actually work together. From there the real open source momentum can > happen instead of everyone depending on Sun/Oracle to give them a free > lunch. The first step that I've been adamant about is making it easier > for developers to play and get their hands on it.. If "we" can enable > that it'll swing things around regardless of what mega-corp does or > doesn't do... > > Just my 0.02$ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS
NFS doesn't care if the access is for a ZFS file system on systems running Solaris 9 or Solaris 10. This isn't a tmp or lofs mount point, is it? If not, I would check the permissions on the client's /nfs/backup directory. Thanks, Cindy On 08/13/10 14:33, Phillip Bruce (Mindsource) wrote: Cindy, I appreciate your help. Understand the NFS server is Solaris 10 The Client is Solaris 9 Here what I see on the client system: # mount -o rw server1:/nfs /nfs/backup # cd /nfs/backup # touch me touch: me cannot create # showmount -e server1 export list for server1: /nfs (everyone) # nfsstat -m /nfs/backup from server1:/nfs Flags: vers=3,proto=tcp,sec=sys,hard,nointr,noac,link,symlink,acl,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,retrans=5,timeo=600 Attr cache:acregmin=3,acregmax=60,acdirmin=30,acdirmax=60 Server1 is setup as followed: # zfs get all nfs NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE nfs type filesystem - nfs creation Mon Aug 9 18:00 2010 - nfs used 125K - nfs available1.55T - nfs referenced 20K- nfs compressratio1.00x - nfs mounted yes- nfs quotanone default nfs reservation none default nfs recordsize 128K default nfs mountpoint /nfs default nfs sharenfs rw local nfs checksum on default nfs compression offdefault nfs atimeon default nfs devices on default nfs exec on default nfs setuid on default nfs readonly offdefault nfs zonedoffdefault nfs snapdir hidden default nfs aclmode groupmask default nfs aclinherit restricted default nfs canmount on default nfs shareiscsi offdefault nfs xattron default nfs copies 1 default nfs version 3 - nfs utf8only off- nfs normalizationnone - nfs casesensitivity sensitive - nfs vscanoffdefault nfs nbmand offdefault nfs sharesmb offdefault nfs refquota none default nfs refreservation none default # exportfs - /nfs rw "" Again I ask what gives, UID and GUID are same on both servers. I would appreciate if someone can confirm if Solaris 9 needs a patch? I can't see why but since this is a ZFS filesystem being NFS over. Who knows!!! Phillip -Original Message- From: Cindy Swearingen [mailto:cindy.swearin...@oracle.com] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:59 PM To: Phillip Bruce (Mindsource) Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS Hi Phillip, What's the error message? How did you share the ZFS file system? # zfs create tank/cindys # zfs sharenfs=on tank/cindys # share - /tank/cindys rw "" # cp /usr/dict/words /tank/cindys/file.1 # cd /tank/cindys # chmod 666 file.1 # ls -l file.1 -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 206663 Aug 13 13:03 file.1 Some things to check: - Are the UID/GID and hostnames resolving between the NFS server and the NFS client? - File permissions - Mount point permissions Can you access the file system on the client by using the automounter? # pwd /net/t2k-brm-03/tank/cindys # echo abc > file.1 # Thanks, Cindy On 08/13/10 13:19, Phillip Bruce wrote: I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem. The client is Solaris 9 U7. I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it. showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone. the dfstab file has option rw set. So what gives? Phillip ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Erast wrote: > > > On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote: > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ >> >> I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't >> get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they won't be >> releasing nightly snapshots. It appears they've stopped Illumos in its >> tracks before it really even got started (perhaps that explains the >> timing of this press release) >> > > Wrong. Be patient, with the pace of current Illumos development it soon > will have all the closed binaries liberated and ready to sync up with > promised ON code drops as dictated by GPL and CDDL licenses. > Given the path they are heading down, there's absolutely 0 guarantee that new features added to Solaris will be opened with CDDL. Furthermore, there's nothing guaranteeing the community is able to reproduce those features on their own if things do shutdown more. That's clearly by design. Obviously Illumos can fork, but that's still 'stopped dead in its tracks' as far as I am concerned. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
Gary Mills wrote: If this information is correct, http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043 further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors. Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris with no public distributions. The community has been abandoned. It was a community of system administrators and nearly no developers. While this may make big news the real impact is probably pretty small. Source code updates will get tossed over the fence and developer partners (Intel) will still have access to onnv-gate. In a way i see this as a very good thing. It will not *force* the existing (small) community of companies and developers to band together to actually work together. From there the real open source momentum can happen instead of everyone depending on Sun/Oracle to give them a free lunch. The first step that I've been adamant about is making it easier for developers to play and get their hands on it.. If "we" can enable that it'll swing things around regardless of what mega-corp does or doesn't do... Just my 0.02$ ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On Aug 13, 2010, at 16:39, Tim Cook wrote: I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't get it. Why are you surprised? Larry Ellison is about making money, not community. He's been fairly successful at it as well. Sun was an engineering company at its heart; Oracle is sales. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they won't be releasing nightly snapshots. It appears they've stopped Illumos in its tracks before it really even got started (perhaps that explains the timing of this press release) Wrong. Be patient, with the pace of current Illumos development it soon will have all the closed binaries liberated and ready to sync up with promised ON code drops as dictated by GPL and CDDL licenses. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
On 13-8-2010 22:43, Gary Mills wrote: If this information is correct, http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043 further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors. Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris with no public distributions. The community has been abandoned. True and very sad. I changed my LAN back to FreeBSD. It does not even come close to OpenSolaris but it is stable and it is developed and open. And it (still) has ZFS support. I wonder for how long.. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
If this information is correct, http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043 further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors. Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris with no public distributions. The community has been abandoned. -- -Gary Mills--Unix Group--Computer and Network Services- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they won't be releasing nightly snapshots. It appears they've stopped Illumos in its tracks before it really even got started (perhaps that explains the timing of this press release) as well as killed the Opensolaris community. Quite frankly, I think there will be an even faster decline of Solaris installed base after this move. I know I have no interest in pushing it anywhere after this mess. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS
Hi Phillip, What's the error message? How did you share the ZFS file system? # zfs create tank/cindys # zfs sharenfs=on tank/cindys # share - /tank/cindys rw "" # cp /usr/dict/words /tank/cindys/file.1 # cd /tank/cindys # chmod 666 file.1 # ls -l file.1 -rw-rw-rw- 1 root root 206663 Aug 13 13:03 file.1 Some things to check: - Are the UID/GID and hostnames resolving between the NFS server and the NFS client? - File permissions - Mount point permissions Can you access the file system on the client by using the automounter? # pwd /net/t2k-brm-03/tank/cindys # echo abc > file.1 # Thanks, Cindy On 08/13/10 13:19, Phillip Bruce wrote: I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem. The client is Solaris 9 U7. I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it. showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone. the dfstab file has option rw set. So what gives? Phillip ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] New Supermicro SAS/SATA controller: AOC-USAS2-L8e in SOHO NAS and HD HT
On Aug 12, 2010, at 7:03 PM, valrh...@gmail.com wrote: > Has anyone bought one of these cards recently? It seems to list for > around $170 at various places, which seems like quite a decent deal. But > no well-known reputable vendor I know seems to sell these, and I want to > be able to have someone backing the sale if something isn't perfect. > Where do you all recommend buying this card from? I put something very similar in -- same number with an 'i' suffix instead of the 'e'. I remember seeing both existed at the time, and that the i was what I needed. I'm using SATA cables, and no expanders (each cable goes directly to a drive), maybe the 'e' has more advanced features (that I knew I didn't need). I can't imagine the retailer would be of any value for support on such a card; perhaps, in the worst case, they might possibly take it back. Selling it on Ebay is often more profitable, since the buyer pays shipping :-). -- 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
[zfs-discuss] NFS issue with ZFS
I have Solaris 10 U7 that is exporting ZFS filesytem. The client is Solaris 9 U7. I can mount the filesytem just fine but I am unable to write to it. showmount -e shows my mount is set for everyone. the dfstab file has option rw set. So what gives? Phillip -- 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] Moving /export to another zpool
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Handojo wrote: >> Are the old /opt and /expore still listed in your >> vfstab(4) file? > > I cant access /etc/vfstab because I can't even log in as my username. I can't > even log in as root from the Login Screen > > And when I boot on using LiveCD, how can I mount my first drive that has > opensolaris installed ? To list the zpools it can see: zpool import To import one called rpool at an alternate root: zpool import -R /mnt rpool -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Moving /export to another zpool
> Are the old /opt and /expore still listed in your > vfstab(4) file? I cant access /etc/vfstab because I can't even log in as my username. I can't even log in as root from the Login Screen And when I boot on using LiveCD, how can I mount my first drive that has opensolaris installed ? -- 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] Moving /export to another zpool
On Fri, August 13, 2010 12:35, Handojo wrote: > Hi > I am moving /opt and /export to a newly created zpool named 'dpool' > > The steps I am working on might be wrong, but here is my step : > > I renamed /export to /export2 > I renamed /opt to /opt2 [...] > But when I reboot, the system is unable to mount /opt , because the mount > point is not empty ( it is indeed not empty, I move everything from /opt2 > to /opt ) > > Then I boot off using LiveCD, forcefully mount dpool into this Live > Session, and restart again. Are the old /opt and /expore still listed in your vfstab(4) file? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware
On Fri, August 13, 2010 11:39, F. Wessels wrote: > I wasn't planning to buy any SSD as a ZIL. I merely acknowledged that an > sandforce with supercap MIGHT be a solution. At least the supercap should > take care of the data loss in case of a power failure. But they are still > in the consumer realm have not been picked up by the enterprise (yet) for > whatever reason. I must admit that I've heard that the sandforce's didn't > really live up to their expectations at least as an slog device. IBM appears to used SandForce for some stuff: http://tinyurl.com/3xtvch4 http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/03/sandforce-makes-ssds-cheaper-faster-more-reliable-just-how/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Moving /export to another zpool
Hi I am moving /opt and /export to a newly created zpool named 'dpool' The steps I am working on might be wrong, but here is my step : I renamed /export to /export2 I renamed /opt to /opt2 I create dpool and mount it to /opt Then I create another ZFS mount point : dpool/export and mount it on /export When these /opt and /export is already attached to dpool, I moved everything from /export2 to /export, and move everything from /opt2 to /opt This Works ! But when I reboot, the system is unable to mount /opt , because the mount point is not empty ( it is indeed not empty, I move everything from /opt2 to /opt ) Then I boot off using LiveCD, forcefully mount dpool into this Live Session, and restart again. Now, the system is able to boot until login screen appears. I put in my username and password, and *BOOM*, it can't find /export/home, because /opt is not mounted yet I can't log in as root I really don't know what to do. If anyone has experience in disaster like this, please let me know. Thank You, In Confusion and Desperation Han -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware
I wasn't planning to buy any SSD as a ZIL. I merely acknowledged that an sandforce with supercap MIGHT be a solution. At least the supercap should take care of the data loss in case of a power failure. But they are still in the consumer realm have not been picked up by the enterprise (yet) for whatever reason. I must admit that I've heard that the sandforce's didn't really live up to their expectations at least as an slog device. I think a lot people on this mailing list would be very interested in your evaluation of the SSD's to prevent costly mistakes. Thanks for the scripts, I'll send you an email about them. And for everybody else here's a good entry about the DDRdrive X1: http://blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/ddrdrive -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware
> -Original Message- > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org > [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Eff Norwood > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:26 AM > To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware > > Don't waste your time with something other than the DDRdrive > for NFS ZIL. If it's RAM based it might work, but why risk it > and if it's an SSD forget it. No SSD will work well for the > ZIL long term. Short term the only SSD to consider would be > Intel, but again long term even that will not work out for > you. The 100% write characteristics of the ZIL are an SSDs > worst case scenario especially without TRIM support. We have > tried them all - Samsung, SanDisk, OCZ and none of those > worked out. In particular, anything Sandforce 1500 based was > the worst so avoid those at all costs if you dare to try an > SSD ZIL. Don't. :) What was the observed behavior with the SF-1500 based SSDs? I was planning to purchase something based on these next year, specifically to be SLOG. -Will ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware
Don't waste your time with something other than the DDRdrive for NFS ZIL. If it's RAM based it might work, but why risk it and if it's an SSD forget it. No SSD will work well for the ZIL long term. Short term the only SSD to consider would be Intel, but again long term even that will not work out for you. The 100% write characteristics of the ZIL are an SSDs worst case scenario especially without TRIM support. We have tried them all - Samsung, SanDisk, OCZ and none of those worked out. In particular, anything Sandforce 1500 based was the worst so avoid those at all costs if you dare to try an SSD ZIL. Don't. :) As for the queue depths, here's the command from the ZFS Evil Tuning Guide: echo zfs_vdev_max_pending/W0t10 | mdb -kw The W0t10 command is what to change. W0t35 (35 seconds) was the old value, 10 is the new one. For our NFS environment, we found W0t2 was the best by looking at the actual IO using dtrace scripts. Email me if you want those scripts. They are here, but need to be edited before they work: http://blogs.sun.com/chrisg/entry/latency_bubble_in_your_io -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware
Yes, the sandforce based ssd's are also interesting. I think both, the 1500 sure can, could be fitted with the necessary supercap to prevent dataloss in case of unexpected power loss. And the 1500 based models will available with a SAS interface needed for clustering. Something the DDRdrive cannot do. BUT at this moment they certainly do not match the DDRdrive in performance and probably also not in MTBF. The DDRdrive only writes to ddr ram, hence the name. Only in case of power loss the ram contents will be written to flash. At least this is what I understand and know of it. The ddr ram doesn't suffer the wear/degradation any flash memory type suffers. You can buy multiple sandforce ssd's with supercap for the price of a single DDRdrive X1. Choice is good! -- 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] one ZIL SLOG per zpool?
On Fri, August 13, 2010 07:52, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > If you have ZIL disabled, then sync=async. Up to 30sec of all writes are > lost. Period. > > But there is no corruption or data written out-of-order. The end result > is as-if you halted the server suddenly, flushed all the buffers to disk, > and then powered off. With the proviso that you should ideally be using a version of OpenSolaris later than snv_128 which allows you to go back a previous uberblock/txg in case the more recent one(s) are not viable: "zpool recovery support" http://arc.opensolaris.org/caselog/PSARC/2009/479/ "need a way to rollback to an uberblock from a previous txg" http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6667683 http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/6067-PSARC-2009479-zpool-recovery-a.html If you're at ZFSv20 or later, you're pretty much guaranteed to have this functionality: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+zfs/20 I'm hoping this, and slogs removal are incorporated into Solaris-proper soon: http://hub.opensolaris.org/bin/view/Community+Group+zfs/19 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware
On Fri, August 13, 2010 07:21, F. Wessels wrote: > I fully agree with your post. NFS is much simpler in administration. > Although I don't have any experience with the DDRdrive X1, I've read and > heard from various people actually using them that it's the best > "available" SLOG device. Before everybody starts yelling "ZEUS" or > "LOGZILLA". Was anybody able to buy one? Apart from SUN. The DDRdrive X1 > is available and you can buy several for one ZEUS. STEC only sells to OEMs at this time. From past discussions on this list, I think the only dependable SSD alternative are devices based on the SandForce SF-1500 controller: http://www.google.com/search?q=SandForce+SF-1500 For all other products, there are question of the devices respecting SYNC commands (i.e., not lying about them), and issues with the lack of supercaps. The SandForce/ZFS thread (January 2010: "preview of new SSD based on SandForce controller") can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/2c6hvqs#35376 http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2010-January/thread.html#35376 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] one ZIL SLOG per zpool?
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Chris Twa > > My plan now is to buy the ssd's and do extensive testing. I want to > focus my performance efforts on two zpools (7x146GB 15K U320 + 7x73GB > 10k U320). I'd really like two ssd's for L2ARC (one ssd per zpool) and > then slice the other two ssd's and then mirror the slices for SLOG (one > mirrored slice per zpool). I'm worried that the ZILs won't be > significantly faster than writing to disk. But I guess that's what > testing is for. If the ZIL in this arrangement isn't beneficial then I > can have four disks for L2ARC instead of two (or my wife and I get > ssd's for our laptops). Remember that ZIL is only for sync writes. So if you're not doing sync writes, there is no benefit of a dedicated log device. Also, for a lot of purposes, disabling ZIL is actually viable. It's zero cost which guarantees absolute optimal performance on spindle disks. Nothing is faster. To quantify the risk, here's what you need to know: In the event of an ungraceful crash, up to 30sec of async writes are lost. Period. But as long as you have not disabled ZIL, then all the sync writes were not lost. If you have ZIL disabled, then sync=async. Up to 30sec of all writes are lost. Period. But there is no corruption or data written out-of-order. The end result is as-if you halted the server suddenly, flushed all the buffers to disk, and then powered off. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware
I fully agree with your post. NFS is much simpler in administration. Although I don't have any experience with the DDRdrive X1, I've read and heard from various people actually using them that it's the best "available" SLOG device. Before everybody starts yelling "ZEUS" or "LOGZILLA". Was anybody able to buy one? Apart from SUN. The DDRdrive X1 is available and you can buy several for one ZEUS. Good to hear another success story. As soon as I have budget I'm going to buy a pair of them. My question, what about I/O queue depths? Which queues those over at VMware or on OpenSolaris? Can you give some examples and actual settings? Oh, in what chassis model have you mounted the DDRdrive? Thanks in advance -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] New Supermicro SAS/SATA controller: AOC-USAS2-L8e in SOHO NAS and HD HT
Thanks for the link; as a result, I learned how to use dd to get some better data on transfer rates, which was extremely helpful. I guess you can fit the card in standard PCIe slot with some spacers, but does anyone have any specific info on this? -- 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] Backup zpool
Il giorno 13/ago/2010, alle ore 03.03, Marty Scholes ha scritto: > Script attached. thanks :) -- Simone Caldana ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
