Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:06 PM, 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? Markets dictate behaviour. Oracle has clearly stated their goal of focusing the Sun-acquired assets at the Fortune-500 market. Nexenta has a different market -- the rest of the world. There is plenty of room for both to be successful. -- richard -- Richard Elling rich...@nexenta.com +1-760-896-4422 Enterprise class storage for everyone www.nexenta.com ___ 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 8/15/10 12:39 AM +0100 Kevin Walker wrote: and Oracle are very, very greedy... Let's not get all soft about OpenSolaris now ... all public companies are very, very greedy. They exist solely to make money. It's awesome that they make things that are useful, but it's just a way to meet the main objective: make money and lots of it. In fact, as much as they possibly can. Sun didn't open source Solaris out of the goodness of its heart or some misguided CSR program. They did it because they were desperate. Sun's business plan happened to be helped along by open sourcing Solaris, but that doesn't make Sun less greedy. Oracle: very, very greedy Apple: very, very greedy Microsoft: very, very greedy Sun: [was] very, very greedy (just not good at it) Fortune 1000: very, very greedy ... ___ 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 Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Mark Bennett wrote: It is now even more likely Solaris will revert to it's niche on SPARC over the next few years. The probability of a "retreat to SPARC" direction is virtually zero. SPARC offers advantages in scalability, but its straight-line performance pales compared to current Intel and AMD CPUs. There is little indication that Oracle will change this situation. 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] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On 08/14/10 03:32 PM, Mark Bennett wrote: That's a very good question actually. I would think that COMSTAR would stay because its used by the Fishworks appliance... however, COMSTAR is a competitive advantage for DIY storage solutions. Maybe they will rip it out of S11 and make it an add-on or something. That would suck. I guess the only real reason you can't yank COMSTAR is because its now the basis for iSCSI Target support. But again, there is nothing saying that Target support has to be part of the standard OS offering. Scary to think about. :) benr. That would be the sensible commercial decision, and kill off the competition in the storage market using OpenSolaris based product. No, it wouldn't. We (Nexenta) are probably the biggest player here. If Oracle yanks the code, we'll keep a copy ourselves. Indeed, we are in the process of some enhancements to this code which will make it into Illumos, but probably not into Oracle Solaris unless they pull from Illumos. :-) I haven't found a linux that can reliably spin the 100Tb I currently have behind OpenSolaris and ZFS. Luckily b134 doesn't seem to have any major issues, and I'm currently looking into a USB boot/raidz root combination for 1U storage. I ran Red Hat 9 with updated packages for quite a few years. As long as the kernel is stable, and you can work through the hurdles, it can still do the job. Sure. - Garrett Mark. ___ 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
I once watched a video interview with Larry from Oracle, this ass rambled on about how he hates cloud computing and that everyone was getting into cloud computing and in his opinion no one understood cloud computing, apart from him... :-| From that day on I felt enlightened about Oracle and how they want do business; they are run by a CEO who is narrow minded and clearly doesn't understand Open Source or cloud computing and Oracle are very, very greedy... I only hope that OpenSolaris can live on the Illumos project and assist great projects such as Nexentastor. http://www.illumos.org/ K On 15 August 2010 00:02, Mark Bennett wrote: > On 8/13/10 8:56 PM -0600 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. > > >I've never understood how OpenSolaris was supposed to get you to Solaris. > >OpenSolaris is for enthusiasts and great great folks like Nexenta. > >Solaris lags so far behind it's not really an upgrade path. > > Fedora is a great beta test arena for what eventually becomes a commercial > Enterprise offering. OpenSolaris was the Solaris equivalent. > > Losing the free bleeding edge testing community will no doubt impact on the > Solaris code quality. > > It is now even more likely Solaris will revert to it's niche on SPARC over > the next few years. > > Mark. > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
On 8/13/10 8:56 PM -0600 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. >I've never understood how OpenSolaris was supposed to get you to Solaris. >OpenSolaris is for enthusiasts and great great folks like Nexenta. >Solaris lags so far behind it's not really an upgrade path. Fedora is a great beta test arena for what eventually becomes a commercial Enterprise offering. OpenSolaris was the Solaris equivalent. Losing the free bleeding edge testing community will no doubt impact on the Solaris code quality. It is now even more likely Solaris will revert to it's niche on SPARC over the next few years. Mark. -- 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] Opensolaris is apparently dead
>That's a very good question actually. I would think that COMSTAR would >stay because its used by the Fishworks appliance... however, COMSTAR is >a competitive advantage for DIY storage solutions. Maybe they will rip >it out of S11 and make it an add-on or something. That would suck. >I guess the only real reason you can't yank COMSTAR is because its now >the basis for iSCSI Target support. But again, there is nothing saying >that Target support has to be part of the standard OS offering. >Scary to think about. :) >benr. That would be the sensible commercial decision, and kill off the competition in the storage market using OpenSolaris based product. I haven't found a linux that can reliably spin the 100Tb I currently have behind OpenSolaris and ZFS. Luckily b134 doesn't seem to have any major issues, and I'm currently looking into a USB boot/raidz root combination for 1U storage. I ran Red Hat 9 with updated packages for quite a few years. As long as the kernel is stable, and you can work through the hurdles, it can still do the job. Mark. -- 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] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On 8/14/10 1:12 PM, Frank Cusack wrote: > > Wow, what leads you guys to even imagine that S11 wouldn't contain > comstar, etc.? *Of course* it will contain most of the bits that > are current today in OpenSolaris. That's a very good question actually. I would think that COMSTAR would stay because its used by the Fishworks appliance... however, COMSTAR is a competitive advantage for DIY storage solutions. Maybe they will rip it out of S11 and make it an add-on or something. That would suck. I guess the only real reason you can't yank COMSTAR is because its now the basis for iSCSI Target support. But again, there is nothing saying that Target support has to be part of the standard OS offering. Scary to think about. :) benr. ___ 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 Andrej Podzimek Or Btrfs. It may not be ready for production now, but it could become a serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time or so. (I have been using I will much sooner pay for sol11 instead of use btrfs. Stability& speed& maturity greatly outweigh a few hundred dollars a year, if you run your business on it. Well, a typical conversation about speed and stability usually boils down to this: A: I've heard that XYZ is unstable and slow. B: Are you sure? Have you tested XYZ? What are your benchmark results? Have you had any issues? A: No. I *have* *not* *tested* XYZ. I think XYZ is so unstable and slow that it's not worth testing. It is true that the userspace utilities for Btrfs are immature. But nobody says Btrfs is ready for business deployments *right* *now*. I merely said it could become a serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time. As far as stability is concerned, I haven't had any issues so far. Neither with ZFS, nor with Btrfs. As far as performance is concerned, some people probably own a crystal ball. This explains their ability to guess whether Btrfs will outperform ZFS or not, once the first "stable" release of Btrfs is out. Unfortunately, I'm not a prophet. ;-) So I'll have to make a decision based on benchmarks and thorough testing on some of my machines, as soon as the first "stable" release of Btrfs is out. Andrej smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Russ Price wrote: > 4. FreeBSD. I could live with it if I had to, but I'm not fond of its > packaging system; the last time I tried it I couldn't get the package tools > to pull a quick binary update. Even IPS works better. I could go to the > ports tree instead, but if I wanted to spend my time recompiling everything, > I'd run Gentoo instead. freebsd-update provides binary updates for the OS. portmaster can do binary-only updates for ports (and can even run without /usr/ports installed). Same with portupgrade. And if you really don't want to use the ports tree, there's pkg_upgrade (part of the bsdadminscripts port). IOW, if you don't want to compile things on FreeBSD, you don't have to. :) -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On 8/14/10 7:58 AM -0500 Russ Price wrote: My guess is that the theoretical Solaris Express 11 will be crippled by any or all of: missing features, artificial limits on functionality, or a restrictive license. I consider the latter most likely, much like the OTN On 8/14/10 3:15 PM -0400 Dave Pooser wrote: enterprise-grade ZFS. Speaking for myself, if Solaris 11 doesn't include COMSTAR I'm going to have to take a serious look at another alternative for our show storage towers Wow, what leads you guys to even imagine that S11 wouldn't contain comstar, etc.? *Of course* it will contain most of the bits that are current today in OpenSolaris. Licensing, yes, I wouldn't trust Oracle in that department. They don't care so much about Solaris itself as they do about Oracle on Solaris. Plenty of companies run Solaris/Oracle almost as an appliance, with very little additional Solaris. I'm sure Oracle is happy to continue or even promote that, and clearly Solaris will now be even more of a preferred platform for Oracle than ever. On 8/14/10 7:58 AM -0500 Russ Price wrote: For me, Solaris had zero mindshare since its beginning, on account of being prohibitively expensive. When OpenSolaris came out, I basically Very true, early on, but Solaris became free (for limited uses, but enough to test it) quite a long time before OpenSolaris was ever even born. Then it became "very free", maybe a year or 2 before OpenSolaris was launched? ___ 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 11:21 PM -0400 Edward Ned Harvey wrote: 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. I also don't know anyone who pays for Solaris. It's already free and you can already try it for free. What's your point? ___ 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 8/13/10 8:56 PM -0600 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. I've never understood how OpenSolaris was supposed to get you to Solaris. OpenSolaris is for enthusiasts and great great folks like Nexenta. Solaris lags so far behind it's not really an upgrade path. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On 8/14/10 Aug 14, 2:57 PM, "Edward Ned Harvey" wrote: >> Or Btrfs. It may not be ready for production now, but it could become a >> serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time or so. (I have been using > > I will much sooner pay for sol11 instead of use btrfs. Stability & speed & > maturity greatly outweigh a few hundred dollars a year, if you run your > business on it. Flip side is that if Oracle convinces enough people that ZFS is a shrinking market (how long do you think the BSDs will support a proprietary filesystem?) then there will be a lot more interest in the BTRFS project, much of it from the same folks who have experience producing enterprise-grade ZFS. Speaking for myself, if Solaris 11 doesn't include COMSTAR I'm going to have to take a serious look at another alternative for our show storage towers -- Dave Pooser, ACSA Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com ___ 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 Andrej Podzimek > > Or Btrfs. It may not be ready for production now, but it could become a > serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time or so. (I have been using I will much sooner pay for sol11 instead of use btrfs. Stability & speed & maturity greatly outweigh a few hundred dollars a year, if you run your business on it. ___ 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 Russ Price > > For me, Solaris had zero mindshare since its beginning, on account of > being > prohibitively expensive. I hear that a lot, and I don't get it. $400/yr does move it out of peoples' basements generally, and keeps sol10 out of enormous clustering facilities that don't have special purposes or free alternatives. But I wouldn't call it prohibitively expensive, for a whole lot of purposes. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On 08/14/10 09:36 AM, Paul B. Henson wrote: On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Tim Cook wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ "Oracle will spend *more* money on OpenSolaris development than Sun did." At least, as a Sun customer, that's the line they were trying to feed me during the buy out. Why exactly would I want to do business with a company that lies to its customers? They've *never* said "OpenSolaris" in this context. The quote was for "Solaris". Oracle *will* spend more on Solaris than Sun did. I believe that. The question is whether they will get as much for their development dollar as Sun did. With the brain drain happening (I know things I can't say, but I was one of the parties to leave a couple of months ago), I think that it will cost Oracle more money to keep Solaris development active than it did Sun. Of course, they won't be "wasting" money on things like community collaboration, open ARC review, etc... -- Garrett ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and VMware
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:26 AM, "Edward Ned Harvey" wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey >> >> #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. > > Correction: I was originally right. ;-) > > In ESXi, if you go to command line (which is busybox) then sparse copies are > not efficient. > If you go into vSphere, and browse the datastore, and copy vmdk files via > gui, then it DOES copy efficiently. > > The behavior is the same, regardless of NFS vs iSCSI. > > You should always copy files via GUI. That's the lesson here. Technically you should always copy vmdk files via vmfstool on the command line. That will give you wire speed transfers. -Ross ___ 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, 13 Aug 2010, Tim Cook wrote: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ "Oracle will spend *more* money on OpenSolaris development than Sun did." At least, as a Sun customer, that's the line they were trying to feed me during the buy out. Why exactly would I want to do business with a company that lies to its customers? -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS automatic rollback and data rescue.
Constantine wrote: ZFS doesn't do this. I thought so too. ;) Situation brief: I've got OpenSolaris 2009.06 installed on the RAID-5 array on the controller with 512 Mb cache (as i can remember) without a cache-saving battery. I hope the controller disabled the cache then. Probably a good idea to run "zpool scrub rpool" to find out if it's broken. It will probably take some time. zpool status will show the progress. At the Friday lightning bolt hit the power supply station of colocating company,and turned out that their UPSs not much more then decoration. After reboot filesystem and logs are on their last snapshot version. Would also be useful to see output of: zfs list -t all -r zpool/filesystem wi...@zeus:~/.zfs/snapshot# zfs list -t all -r rpool NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool 427G 1.37T 82.5K /rpool rpool/ROOT 366G 1.37T19K legacy rpool/ROOT/opensolaris20.6M 1.37T 3.21G / rpool/ROOT/xvm8.10M 1.37T 8.24G / rpool/ROOT/xvm-1 690K 1.37T 8.24G / rpool/ROOT/xvm-2 35.1G 1.37T 232G / rpool/ROOT/xvm-3 851K 1.37T 221G / rpool/ROOT/xvm-4 331G 1.37T 221G / rpool/ROOT/xv...@install 144M - 2.82G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@xvm 38.3M - 3.21G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-07-27-01:09:1456K - 8.24G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-07-27-01:09:5756K - 8.24G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:34:54 2.30M - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:35:17 1.14M - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:42:12 5.72M - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:42:45 5.69M - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:46:25 573K - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:46:34 525K - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:48:11 6.51M - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2010-04-22-03:50:25 24.6M - 221G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2010-04-22-03:51:28 24.6M - 221G - Actually, there's 24.6Mbytes worth of changes to the filesystem since the last snapshot, which is coincidentally about the same as there was over the preceding minute between the last two snapshots. I can't tell if (or how much of) that happened before, verses after, the reboot though. rpool/dump16.0G 1.37T 16.0G - rpool/export 28.6G 1.37T21K /export rpool/export/home 28.6G 1.37T21K /export/home rpool/export/home/wiron 28.6G 1.37T 28.6G /export/home/wiron rpool/swap16.0G 1.38T 101M - = Normally in a power-out scenario, you will only lose asynchronous writes since the last transaction group commit, which will be up to 30 seconds worth (although normally much less), and you lose no synchronous writes. However, I've no idea what your potentially flaky RAID array will have done. If it was using its cache and thinking it was non-volatile, then it could easily have corrupted the zfs filesystem due to having got writes out of sequence with transaction commits, and this can render the filesystem no longer mountable because the back-end storage has lied to zfs about committing writes. Even though you were lucky and it still mounts, it might still be corrupted, hence the suggestion to run zpool scrub (and even more important, get the RAID array fixed). Since I presume ZFS doesn't have redundant storage for this zpool, any corrupted data can't be repaired by ZFS, although it will tell you about it. Running ZFS without redundancy on flaky storage is not a good place to be. -- Andrew Gabriel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS automatic rollback and data rescue.
And, if it matters, this OpenSolaris installed as Dom0 of xvm. -- 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 automatic rollback and data rescue.
>ZFS doesn't do this. I thought so too. ;) Situation brief: I've got OpenSolaris 2009.06 installed on the RAID-5 array on the controller with 512 Mb cache (as i can remember) without a cache-saving battery. At the Friday lightning bolt hit the power supply station of colocating company,and turned out that their UPSs not much more then decoration. After reboot filesystem and logs are on their last snapshot version. >Would also be useful to see output of: zfs list -t all -r zpool/filesystem wi...@zeus:~/.zfs/snapshot# zfs list -t all -r rpool NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool 427G 1.37T 82.5K /rpool rpool/ROOT 366G 1.37T19K legacy rpool/ROOT/opensolaris20.6M 1.37T 3.21G / rpool/ROOT/xvm8.10M 1.37T 8.24G / rpool/ROOT/xvm-1 690K 1.37T 8.24G / rpool/ROOT/xvm-2 35.1G 1.37T 232G / rpool/ROOT/xvm-3 851K 1.37T 221G / rpool/ROOT/xvm-4 331G 1.37T 221G / rpool/ROOT/xv...@install 144M - 2.82G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@xvm 38.3M - 3.21G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-07-27-01:09:1456K - 8.24G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-07-27-01:09:5756K - 8.24G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:34:54 2.30M - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:35:17 1.14M - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:42:12 5.72M - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:42:45 5.69M - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:46:25 573K - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:46:34 525K - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2009-09-13-23:48:11 6.51M - 206G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2010-04-22-03:50:25 24.6M - 221G - rpool/ROOT/xv...@2010-04-22-03:51:28 24.6M - 221G - rpool/dump16.0G 1.37T 16.0G - rpool/export 28.6G 1.37T21K /export rpool/export/home 28.6G 1.37T21K /export/home rpool/export/home/wiron 28.6G 1.37T 28.6G /export/home/wiron rpool/swap16.0G 1.38T 101M - = -- 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] Opensolaris is apparently dead
Really sad. Will all the opensolaris-related mailing lists be dead? Thanks. Fred > -Original Message- > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Andrej Podzimek > Sent: 星期六, 八月 14, 2010 23:36 > To: Russ Price > Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead > > > 3. Just stick with b134. Actually, I've managed to compile my way up > to b142, but I'm having trouble getting beyond it - my attempts to > install later versions just result in new boot environments with the > old kernel, even with the latest pkg-gate code in place. Still, even if > I get the latest code to install, it's not viable for the long term > unless I'm willing to live with stasis. > > I run build 146. There have been some heads-up messages on the topic. > You need b137 or later in order to build b143 or later. Plus the latest > packaging bits and other stuff. > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/on-discuss/2010-June/001932.html > > When compiling b146, it's good to read this first: > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/on-discuss/2010- > August/002110.html Instead of using the tagged onnv_146 code, you have > to apply all the changesets up to 13011:dc5824d1233f. > > > 6. Abandon ZFS completely and go back to LVM/MD-RAID. I ran it for > years before switching to ZFS, and it works - but it's a bitter pill to > swallow after drinking the ZFS Kool-Aid. > > Or Btrfs. It may not be ready for production now, but it could become a > serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time or so. (I have been using > it for some time with absolutely no issues, but some people (Edward > Shishkin) say it has obvious bugs related to fragmentation.) > > Andrej ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
3. Just stick with b134. Actually, I've managed to compile my way up to b142, but I'm having trouble getting beyond it - my attempts to install later versions just result in new boot environments with the old kernel, even with the latest pkg-gate code in place. Still, even if I get the latest code to install, it's not viable for the long term unless I'm willing to live with stasis. I run build 146. There have been some heads-up messages on the topic. You need b137 or later in order to build b143 or later. Plus the latest packaging bits and other stuff. http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/on-discuss/2010-June/001932.html When compiling b146, it's good to read this first: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/on-discuss/2010-August/002110.html Instead of using the tagged onnv_146 code, you have to apply all the changesets up to 13011:dc5824d1233f. 6. Abandon ZFS completely and go back to LVM/MD-RAID. I ran it for years before switching to ZFS, and it works - but it's a bitter pill to swallow after drinking the ZFS Kool-Aid. Or Btrfs. It may not be ready for production now, but it could become a serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time or so. (I have been using it for some time with absolutely no issues, but some people (Edward Shishkin) say it has obvious bugs related to fragmentation.) Andrej smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS automatic rollback and data rescue.
Constantine wrote: Hi. I've got the ZFS filesystem (opensolaris 2009.06), witch, as i can see, was automatically rollbacked by OS to the lastest snapshot after the power failure. ZFS doesn't do this. Can you give some more details of what you're seeing? Would also be useful to see output of: zfs list -t all -r zpool/filesystem There is a trouble - snapshot is too old, and ,consequently, there is a questions -- Can I browse pre-rollbacked corrupted branch of FS ? And, if I can, how ? -- Andrew Gabriel ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS automatic rollback and data rescue.
>Look in the (hidden) .zfs directory (mind the dot) That was the first thing which i did, there is nothing new (except snapshots, but i am on one of them already). -- 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 automatic rollback and data rescue.
On 14-8-2010 15:56, Constantine wrote: Hi. I've got the ZFS filesystem (opensolaris 2009.06), witch, as i can see, was automatically rollbacked by OS to the lastest snapshot after the power failure. There is a trouble - snapshot is too old, and ,consequently, there is a questions -- Can I browse pre-rollbacked corrupted branch of FS ? And, if I can, how ? Look in the (hidden) .zfs directory (mind the dot) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS automatic rollback and data rescue.
Hi. I've got the ZFS filesystem (opensolaris 2009.06), witch, as i can see, was automatically rollbacked by OS to the lastest snapshot after the power failure. There is a trouble - snapshot is too old, and ,consequently, there is a questions -- Can I browse pre-rollbacked corrupted branch of FS ? And, if I can, how ? Thank you. -- 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] Opensolaris is apparently dead
On 14-8-2010 14:58, Russ Price wrote: 6. Abandon ZFS completely and go back to LVM/MD-RAID. I ran it for years before switching to ZFS, and it works - but it's a bitter pill to swallow after drinking the ZFS Kool-Aid. Nice summary. ;-) I switched to FreeBSD for the moment and it works very well although I have some ZFS issues I do not have in the latest OpenSolaris b134 release. The pkg system is fine too. Binary updates are a piece of cake. I'm no fan of LVM and although I have some ZFS issues now I'm sure they will be solved. In the meantime I created some gmirrors and they do the job well. I'd love to see the day coming I'm able to use ZFS again. Kool-Aid? An understatement. Once used to ZFs it is very difficult to do without. My main hopes are for FreeBSD or maybe Illumos, the latter has a long way to go yet. ___ 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 10:21 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: 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. My guess is that the theoretical Solaris Express 11 will be crippled by any or all of: missing features, artificial limits on functionality, or a restrictive license. I consider the latter most likely, much like the OTN downloads of Oracle DB, where you can download and run it for development purposes, but don't even THINK of using it as a production server for your home or small business. Of course, an Oracle DB is overkill for such a purpose anyway, but that's a different kettle of fish. For me, Solaris had zero mindshare since its beginning, on account of being prohibitively expensive. When OpenSolaris came out, I basically ignored it once I found out that it was not completely open source, since I figured that there was too great a risk of a train wreck like we have now. Then, I decided this winter to give ZFS a spin, decided I liked it, and built a home server around it - and within weeks Oracle took over, tore up the tracks without telling anybody, and made the train wreck I feared into a reality. I should have listened to my own advice. As much as I'd like to be proven wrong, I don't expect SX11 to be useful for my purposes, so my home file server options are: 1. Nexenta Core. It's maintained, and (somewhat) more up-to-date than the late OpenSolaris. As I've been running Linux since the days when a 486 was a cutting-edge system, I don't mind having a GNU userland. Of course, now that Oracle has slammed the door, it'll be difficult for it to move forward - which leads to: 2. IllumOS. In 20/20 hindsight, a project like this should have begun as soon as OpenSolaris first came out the door, but better late than never. In the short term, it's not yet an option, but in the long term, it may be the best (or only) hope. At the very least, I won't be able to use it until an open mpt driver is in place. 3. Just stick with b134. Actually, I've managed to compile my way up to b142, but I'm having trouble getting beyond it - my attempts to install later versions just result in new boot environments with the old kernel, even with the latest pkg-gate code in place. Still, even if I get the latest code to install, it's not viable for the long term unless I'm willing to live with stasis. 4. FreeBSD. I could live with it if I had to, but I'm not fond of its packaging system; the last time I tried it I couldn't get the package tools to pull a quick binary update. Even IPS works better. I could go to the ports tree instead, but if I wanted to spend my time recompiling everything, I'd run Gentoo instead. 5. Linux/FUSE. It works, but it's slow. 5a. Compile-it-yourself ZFS kernel module for Linux. This would be a hassle (though DKMS would make it less of an issue), but usable - except that the current module only supports zvols, so it's not ready yet, unless I wanted to run ext3-on-zvol. Neither of these solutions are practical for booting from ZFS. 6. Abandon ZFS completely and go back to LVM/MD-RAID. I ran it for years before switching to ZFS, and it works - but it's a bitter pill to swallow after drinking the ZFS Kool-Aid. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Compress ratio???
> From: cyril.pli...@gmail.com [mailto:cyril.pli...@gmail.com] On Behalf > Of Cyril Plisko > > The compressratio shows you how much *real* data was compressed. > The file in question, however, can be sparse file and have its size > vastly > different from what du says, even without compression. Ahhh. Thank you. ___ 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 Edward Ned Harvey > > #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. Correction: I was originally right. ;-) In ESXi, if you go to command line (which is busybox) then sparse copies are not efficient. If you go into vSphere, and browse the datastore, and copy vmdk files via gui, then it DOES copy efficiently. The behavior is the same, regardless of NFS vs iSCSI. You should always copy files via GUI. That's the lesson here. ___ 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
"Mike M" wrote: > Think: strategic business advantage. > > Oracle are not stupid, they recognize a jewel when they see one. Too bad that they decided to throw it into acid. 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] Compress ratio???
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > 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 > > NAME PROPERTY VALUE SOURCE > > mypool/myzfs compressratio 1.28x - > > > > # zfs list | grep myzfs > > mypool/myzfs 5.65G 3.80T 5.65G > /mypool/myzfs The compressratio shows you how much *real* data was compressed. The file in question, however, can be sparse file and have its size vastly different from what du says, even without compression. -- Regards, Cyril ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
