Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Harry Putnam wrote: > Freddie Cash writes: > > > If you only want RAID0 or RAID1, then btrfs is okay. There's no support > for > > RAID5+ as yet, and it's been "in development" for a couple of years now. > > [...] snipped excellent information > > Thanks much, I've very appreciative of the good information. Much > better to hear from actual users than pouring thru webpages to get a > picture. > > I'm googling on the citations you posted: > > FreeNAS and freebsd. > > Maybe you can give a little synopsis of those too. I mean when it > comes to utilizing zfs; is it much the same as if running it on > solaris? > > FreeBSD 8-STABLE (what will become 8.3) and 9.0-RELEASE (will be released hopefully this month) both include ZFSv28, the latest open-source version of ZFS. This includes raidz3 and dedupe support, same as OpenSolaris, Illumos, and other OSol-based distros. Not sure what the latest version of ZFS is in Solaris 10. The ZFS bits work the same as on Solaris with only 2 small differences: - sharenfs property just writes data to /etc/zfs/exports, which is read by the standard NFS daemons (it's easier to just use /etc/exports to share ZFS filesystems) - sharesmb property doesn't do anything; you have to use Samba to share ZFS filesystems The only real differences are how the OSes themselves work. If you are fluent in Solaris, then FreeBSD will seem strange (and vice-versa). If you are fluent in Linux, then FreeBSD will be similar (but a lot more cohesive and "put-together"). > I knew freebsd had a port, but assumed it would stack up kind of sorry > compared to Solaris zfs. > > Maybe something on the order of the linux fuse/zfs adaptation in usability. > > Is that assumption wrong? > > Absolutely, completely, and utterly false. :) The FreeBSD port of ZFS is pretty much on par with ZFS on OpenSolaris. The Linux port of ZFS is just barely usable. No comparison at all. :) > I actually have some experience with Freebsd, (long before there was a > zfs port), and it is very linux like in many ways. > > That's like saying that OpenIndiana is very Linux-like in many ways. :) -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs
Freddie Cash writes: > If you only want RAID0 or RAID1, then btrfs is okay. There's no support for > RAID5+ as yet, and it's been "in development" for a couple of years now. [...] snipped excellent information Thanks much, I've very appreciative of the good information. Much better to hear from actual users than pouring thru webpages to get a picture. I'm googling on the citations you posted: FreeNAS and freebsd. Maybe you can give a little synopsis of those too. I mean when it comes to utilizing zfs; is it much the same as if running it on solaris? I knew freebsd had a port, but assumed it would stack up kind of sorry compared to Solaris zfs. Maybe something on the order of the linux fuse/zfs adaptation in usability. Is that assumption wrong? I actually have some experience with Freebsd, (long before there was a zfs port), and it is very linux like in many ways. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs
Or, if you absolutely must run linux for the operating system, see: http://zfsonlinux.org/ On Oct 17, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Freddie Cash wrote: > If you absolutely must run Linux on your storage server, for whatever reason, > then you probably won't be running ZFS. For the next year or two, it would > probably be safer to run software RAID (md), with LVM on top, with XFS or > Ext4 on top. It's not the easiest setup to manage, but it would be safer > than btrfs. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> My main reasons for using zfs are pretty basic compared to some here
What are they ? (the reasons for using ZFS)
> and I wondered how btrfs stacks up on the basic qualities.
I use ZFS @ work because it is the only FS we have been able to find
that scales to what we need (hundreds of millions of small files in
ONE filesystem).
I use ZFS @ home because I really can't afford to have my data
corrupted and I can't afford Enterprise grade hardware.
--
{1-2-3-4-5-6-7-}
Paul Kraus
-> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
-> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
-> Technical Advisor, RPI Players
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Harry Putnam wrote: > This subject may have been ridden to death... I missed it if so. > > Not wanting to start a flame fest or whatever but > > As a common slob who isn't very skilled, I like to see some commentary > from some of the pros here as to any comparison of zfs against btrfs. > > I realize btrfs is a lot less `finished' but I see it is starting to > show up as an option on some linux install routines... Debian an > ubuntu I noticed and probably many others. > > My main reasons for using zfs are pretty basic compared to some here > and I wondered how btrfs stacks up on the basic qualities. > If you only want RAID0 or RAID1, then btrfs is okay. There's no support for RAID5+ as yet, and it's been "in development" for a couple of years now. There's no working fsck tool for btrfs. It's been "in development" and "released in two weeks" for over a year now. Don't put any data you need onto btrfs. It's extremely brittle in the face of power loss. My biggest gripe with btrfs is that they have come up with all new terminology that only applies to them. Filesystem now means "a collection of block devices grouped together". While "sub-volume" is what we'd normally call a "filesystem". And there's a few other weird terms thrown in as well. >From all that I've read on the btrfs mailing list, and news sites around the web, btrfs is not ready for production use on any system with data that you can't afford to lose. If you absolutely must run Linux on your storage server, for whatever reason, then you probably won't be running ZFS. For the next year or two, it would probably be safer to run software RAID (md), with LVM on top, with XFS or Ext4 on top. It's not the easiest setup to manage, but it would be safer than btrfs. If you don't need to run Linux on your storage server, then definitely give ZFS a try. There are many options, depending on your level of expertise: FreeNAS for plug-n-play simplicity with a web GUI, FreeBSD for a simpler OS that runs well on x86/amd64 systems, any of the OpenSolaris-based distros, or even Solaris if you have the money. With ZFS you get: - working single, dual, triple parity raidz (RAID5, RAID6, "RAID7" equivalence) - n-way mirroring - end-to-end checksums for all data/metadata blocks - unlimited snapshots - pooled storage - unlimited filesystems - send/recv capabilities - built-in compression - built-in dedupe - built-in encryption (in ZFSv31, which is currently only in Solaris 11) - built-in CIFS/NFS sharing (on Solaris-based systems; FreeBSD uses normal nfsd and Samba for this) - automatic hot-spares (on Solaris-based systems; FreeBSD only supports manual spares) - and more Maybe in another 5 years or so, Btrfs will be up to the point of ZFS today. Just image where ZFS will be in 5 years of so. :) -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] about btrfs and zfs
This subject may have been ridden to death... I missed it if so. Not wanting to start a flame fest or whatever but As a common slob who isn't very skilled, I like to see some commentary from some of the pros here as to any comparison of zfs against btrfs. I realize btrfs is a lot less `finished' but I see it is starting to show up as an option on some linux install routines... Debian an ubuntu I noticed and probably many others. My main reasons for using zfs are pretty basic compared to some here and I wondered how btrfs stacks up on the basic qualities. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Scrub error and object numbers
Here is the out put from: zdb -vvv smbpool/glusterfs 0x621b67 Dataset smbpool/glusterfs [ZPL], ID 270, cr_txg 1034346, 20.1T, 4139680 objects, rootbp DVA[0]=<5:5e21000:600> DVA[1]=<0:5621000:600> [L0 DMU objset] fletcher4 lzjb LE contiguous unique double size=400L/200P birth=1887643L/1887643P fill=4139680 cksum=c3a5ac075:4be35f40b07:f3425110eaaa:217fb2e74152e6 Object lvl iblk dblk dsize lsize %full type 6429543116K512 2K512 100.00 ZFS directory 264 bonus ZFS znode dnode flags: USED_BYTES dnode maxblkid: 0 path??? uid 1009 gid 300 atime Fri Jul 22 11:02:33 2011 mtime Fri Jul 22 11:02:33 2011 ctime Fri Jul 22 11:02:33 2011 crtime Fri Jul 22 11:02:33 2011 gen 1659401 mode41777 size5 parent 6429542 links 0 xattr 0 rdev0x Still hoping someone could point me in the right directionright now I am doing a recursive find command to locate files created on July 22nd (by that user)...but somehow I think the files no longer exist and that is why zfs is confused. Any ideas please Thanks, Shain From: Shain Miley Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:06 PM To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Scrub error and object numbers Hello all, I am using Opensolaris version snv_101b and after some recent issues with a faulty raid card I am unable to finish an entire 'zpool scrub' to completion. While running the scub I receive the following: errors: Permanent errors have been detected in the following files: smbpool/glusterfs:<0x621b67> I have found out that the number after the data set represents the object number of the file/directory in question, however I have not been able to figure out what I need to do next to get this cleared up. We currently have 25TB of large files stored on this file server...so I am REALLY looking to avoid having to do some sort of massive backup/restore in order to clear this up. Can anyone help shed some light on what I can/should do next? Thanks in advance, Shain ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Wanted: sanity check for a clustered ZFS idea
On Oct 15, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Toby Thain wrote: > On 15/10/11 2:43 PM, Richard Elling wrote: >> On Oct 15, 2011, at 6:14 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Tim Cook In my example - probably not a completely clustered FS. A clustered ZFS pool with datasets individually owned by specific nodes at any given time would suffice for such VM farms. This would give users the benefits of ZFS (resilience, snapshots and clones, shared free space) merged with the speed of direct disk access instead of lagging through a storage server accessing these disks. >>> >>> I think I see a couple of points of disconnect. >>> >>> #1 - You seem to be assuming storage is slower when it's on a remote storage >>> server as opposed to a local disk. While this is typically true over >>> ethernet, it's not necessarily true over infiniband or fibre channel. >> >> Ethernet has *always* been faster than a HDD. Even back when we had 3/180s >> 10Mbps Ethernet it was faster than the 30ms average access time for the >> disks of >> the day. I tested a simple server the other day and round-trip for 4KB of >> data on a >> busy 1GbE switch was 0.2ms. Can you show a HDD as fast? Indeed many SSDs >> have trouble reaching that rate under load. > > Hmm, of course the *latency* of Ethernet has always been much less, but I did > not see it reaching the *throughput* of a single direct attached disk until > gigabit. In practice, there are very, very, very few disk workloads that do not involve a seek. Just one seek kills your bandwidth. But we do not define "fast" as "bandwidth" do we? > I'm pretty sure direct attached disk throughput in the Sun 3 era was much > better than 10Mbit Ethernet could manage. Iirc, NFS on a Sun 3 running NetBSD > over 10B2 was only *just* capable of streaming MP3, with tweaking, from my > own experiments (I ran 10B2 at home until 2004; hey, it was good enough!) The max memory you could put into a Sun-3/280 was 32MB. There is no possible way for such a system to handle 100 Mbps Ethernet, you could exhaust all of main memory in about 3 seconds :-) -- richard -- ZFS and performance consulting http://www.RichardElling.com VMworld Copenhagen, October 17-20 OpenStorage Summit, San Jose, CA, October 24-27 LISA '11, Boston, MA, December 4-9 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
