Re: [zfs-discuss] deduplication
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Cyril Pliskocyril.pli...@mountall.com wrote: I am talking about the process, not the announcement. What's wrong with process? -- Kind regards, BM Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
Hi, Miles! Hope, weather is fine at your place. :-) On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Miles Nordin wrote: I understood Bogdan's post was a trap: ``provide bug numbers. Oh, they're fixed? nothing to see here then. no bugs? nothing to see here then.'' Would be great if you do not put a words in my mouth, please. All what I wanted to say (not to you, but to everyone, including myself): we have to be constructive and make common sense (which is not so common, unfortunately). Otherwise I am not sure we are welcomed here. Does this mean ZFS was not broken before those bugs were filed? Does this mean ZFS has no more bugs? Does this mean that we have stop using it? Was flame throwing dragons real? Is there a life on a Mars?.. :) Just kidding, never mind. :-) Also, as I said elsewhere, there's a barrier controlled by Sun to getting bugs accepted. Looks like you're new here. :-) E.g. there is a list very nasty bugs in Sun Java that has been filled in 2006 or earlier and lots of people suffering (including me) now, in 2009. But hey, not our job to cry and FUD around, I think. How about this scenario: either let's find workaround (and provide on the same bugreport) or, if it is so critical (and Sun rejected it), let's make a nice PDF with exploit sources or step-by-step instruction how to crash your system down to italian spaghetti and publish on a Slashdot :-) to let good guys find the rest how to kill solarises in two seconds. Then I am 100.0% sure Sun will patch it just right immediately. It is exaggerated, but still do you like it? But instead to do this way, somewhat Slashdot folks more just talks vague blah-blah-blah (mostly being modded insightful: 5 or interesting: 5, while is a just a troll or FUD) rather then doing something really useful. I am pretty much sure, if there will be graphic comparisons with a source code on a Phoronix or similar resources like FAT32 seriously beats ZFS in stability or How to DoS your ZFS from Google Android or Linux's ext2 is quince faster than ZFS — then this would add more adrenaline to Sun's folks fixing it. However... there are only Slashdot talks that are nothing more than just a Slashdot talks. I understand you and other Slashdot folks had some problems. But I hadn't, including lots of other people that ZFS works for them just fine. Thus it is even/even. :-P HTH. No, it does not. Just yet another e-mail posting that does not really helps fixing bugs. :-) I think a better question would be: what kind of tests would be most promising for turning some subclass of these lost pools reported on the mailing list into an actionable bug? my first bet would be writing tools that test for ignored sync cache commands leading to lost writes, and apply them to the case when iSCSI targets are rebooted but the initiator isn't. I think in the process of writing the tool you'll immediately bump into a defect, because you'll realize there is no equivalent of a 'hard' iSCSI mount like there is in NFS. and there cannot be a strict equivalent to 'hard' mounts in iSCSI, because we want zpool redundancy to preserve availability when an iSCSI target goes away. I think the whole model is wrong somehow. Now this DOES make sense! :-) Actually, iSCSI has lots of various small issues that grows into serious problems, thus that needs to be brought up, clearly described and I am sure suggestions are welcome. If you want to help with stress-tests, then I can help you in this, I think. For example, here is very nice article of iSCSI setup for Time Machine. The article is also very nice academic example to let Slashdot folks learn once how to make sense writing docs, complains and reports: http://www.kamiogi.net/Kamiogi/Frame_Dragging/Entries/2009/5/25_OpenSolaris_ZFS_iSCSI_Time_Machine_in_20_Minutes_or_Less.html So go check it out, follow the steps and make the same. Then write some scripts that can bring it down, find why, find where is the problem, suggest solution and publish this in Sun's bugs database. If you do that — my applauds and respect. How this sounds to you? :-) -- Kind regards, BM Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
2009/6/18 Timh Bergström timh.bergst...@diino.net: USB-sticks has proven a bad idea with zfs mirrors I think, USB sticks is bad idea for mirrors in general... :-) ZFS on iSCSI *is* flaky OK, so what is the status of your bugreport about this? Was ignored or just rejected?.. Flaming people on ./ Nobody flaming people nor in current directory (./) neither on /. (slash-dot). All asked is a practical steps or bug reports. P.S. Additionally, everyone can spend their true anger on an installed Solaris somewhere on a spare hardware and kill that sucker with a stress-tests. Effect: you're relaxed and Sun folks has a job. :-) -- Kind regards, BM Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Erik Trimbleerik.trim...@sun.com wrote: I can't say as to the entire Atom line of stuff, but I've found the Atoms are OK for desktop use, and not anywhere powerful enough for even a basic NAS server. The demands of wire-speed Gigabit, ZFS, and encryption/compression are hard on the little Atom guys. +1. I wanted to skip it, but will reply. I have two Asus EeePC Box 202 / 2GB. These are running numerous zones (snv_111b) for me with various services on them and still are very usable and fast enough. Additionally, I overclocked each up to 1.75GHz, did some corrections to Solaris's TCP/IP stack, removed some unnecessary services and they are just fine. Plus, it seems to be hard to find an Atom motherboard which supports more than 2GB of RAM, which is a serious problem. Well, let's don't forget that Atom is also smallest low-power processor and is designed for cheap and small nettops/netbooks that are don't need 4GB RAM ever. Despite of that: http://www.mini-itx.com/store/?c=53 -- Kind regards, BM Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Orvar Korvarno-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: Ok, so you mean the comments are mostly FUD and bull shit? Unless there is real step-by-step reproducible proof, then yes, it is completely useless waste of time and BS that I would not care at all, if I were you. -- Kind regards, BM Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Miles Nordincar...@ivy.net wrote: Surely you can understand there is such thing as a ``hard to reproduce problem?'' Is the phrase so new to you? If you'd experience with other filesystems in their corruption-prone infancy, it wouldn't be. I understand your point, but I don't understand what you're trying to achieve this way? Of course, not everything that you can do you should do (like your target rebooting etc) and of course it helps, once reproducible. The same way, if you have a mirror of USB hard drives, then swap cables and reboot — your mirror gone. But that's not because of ZFS, if you will look more closely... That's why I think that speaking My $foo crashes therefore it is all crap is bad idea: either help to fix it or just don't use it, thus fcsk and lost+found are your friends on ext3 with corrupted superblock after yet another Linux kernel panic. :-) JFYI: *all* filesystems crashes and loses their data for time to time. That's what backups are for. Hence if you use your backup quite often, then you can find the problem and report here. That would be very appreciated and helpful. Thanks! -- Kind regards, BM Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Neal Pollackneal.poll...@sun.com wrote: Not sure I understand all this concern. 32 bit can use 1.0 TB disks as data drives. ZFS can use more than 1 disk. So if you hook up 48 of the 1.0 TB disks using ZFS on a 32 bit system, where is the problem? +1. Even if someone needs larger disk space, then it means system going to withstand bigger/larger stream, thus they'd better probably switch to 64bit and think about better hardware anyway. Just try to imagine $100 price Atom-based Eee PC, running 1.6GHz clockspeed with 1GB RAM, yet with 48 USB external hard drives hooked... :-) If someone running a 32bit system is angry because they can't waste a 1.5 TB seagate disk as the boot drive, then I'll admit I don't understand something in their requirements. What is the specific complaint please? LOL The only specific complaint must be related to preventing people from defective Slashdot brainwash that sways them towards amateurish presumptions... -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Miles Nordincar...@ivy.net wrote: What have you done to try to reproduce the problem? Well, if you had posted here steps that fails for you and I missed this, then I am sorry, I would like to get this somewhere from archive and try. However, please don't get me wrong: no ad hominem, but just why bother busy people with a buzz? Let's stop attitude. Personally I am running various open solaris versions on a VirtualBox as a crash dummy, as well as running osol on a real systems. All ZFS. So believe me, I am also really concerned about this kind of things and quite paranoidal. However, currently I see more FUD and useless buzz, rather than reality. Please give here a clear steps that fails for you, provide some dtrace output etc. Once others confirms the same — I am pretty much sure that it will be fixed, because nobody here ever saying ZFS is bug free. And Sun guys always willing to help here as well as everybody else. :-) -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Miles Nordin car...@ivy.net wrote: What have you done to try to reproduce the problem? P.S. I've read that Slashdot article and all the comments and even replied some. Plus, I've actually tried to reproduce few things that they vaguely are able to describe. No failures so far. Also, I tried to write some stress-tests (in Python) and still no failures. The problem is that 99% of Slashdot comments usually best to be archived to /dev/null... Really, If you find something serious — let us know. -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool import hangs
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Brad Reeseno-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: Yes, you may access the system via ssh. Please contact me at bar001 at uark dot edu and I will reply with details of how to connect. ...and then please tell us what was wrong! :-) -- Kind regards, BM Things, that are stupid at the beginning, rarely ends up wisely. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] eon or nexentacore or opensolaris
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Andre Lueno-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: Hi Bogdan, I'd recommend the following RAM minimums for a fair balance of performance. 700Mb 32-bit 1Gb 64-bit OK, it probably means 2GB when it goes actually practical. :-) Thanks! -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] APPLE: ZFS need bug corrections instead of new func! Or?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Orvar Korvarno-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: According to this webpage, there are some errors that makes ZFS unusable under certain conditions. That is not really optimal for an Enterprise file system. In my opinion the ZFS team should focus on bug correction instead of adding new functionality. The functionality that exists far surpass any other file system, therefore it is better to fix bugs. In my opinion. Read those error reports and complaints and data corruption: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS Slashdot? 'cmon, Orvar... You've found the resource reference to, LOL. Try to say in Slashdot something really reasonable, like that GNOME (GUI No One Might Enjoy) actually sucks in its integration and is still horrible on small resolutions (e.g. you get OK/Cancel off the screen on a netbooks) and you will be an enemy of the whole world. And if you say that the latest KDE (Kids Desktop Environment) is actually even more terrible than Windows 95 — you're just simply dead. :-) Personally, I tried to get scared on ZFS, but all the time when yet another slashdotter (read: teenager) screams about dramatical data loss, I am unable to reproduce the problem. Thus I think it would be much better to the community if we actually find a real step-by-step reproducible crashes (VirtualBox is our friend here), fill a real bug reports and then it would be much more reasonable to speak about a particular case, rather then spreading out stupid FUD, taken from a useless slashdot commenters. P.S. I mean, let's don't waste our time on slashdot and let's find something actually bad, reproduce, fill a bug and then report here. :-) -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] eon or nexentacore or opensolaris
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Andre Lueno-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: Feel free to give EON a twirl. It will only cost you CD and the time to burn and boot it. Or if you have a VM you can test it there. You'll know reallly fast if it has enough of a framework for you to add the missing bits you need or not. Hope that helps. Hi Andre. Thanks for the comment. What a reasonable minimal amount of RAM you would recommend? -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] eon or nexentacore or opensolaris
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Anil Gulecha anil.ve...@gmail.com wrote: One example is StormOS, and XFCE based distro being built on NCP2. According to the latest blog entry.. a release is imminent. Perhaps you'll have better desktop experience with this. (www.stormos.org) So.Tried it just now. Shortly: I'd stay with OpenSolaris for at least a year. :-) -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] eon or nexentacore or opensolaris
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Anil Gulecha anil.ve...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Bogdan, Which particular packages were these? RC3 is quite stable, and all server packages are solid. If you do face issues with a particular one, we'd appreciate a bug report. All information on this is helpful.. Well, I don't really remember exactly, because I've tried it so many times and got so many issues in various places. I just had issues everywhere: X11 (you do not need it, but still), updates, versions etc. Very, very unstable and scary distro yet for me. I believe idea is really brilliant and I love Nexenta in general. Just still very buggy and seems like not very dynamic development so far: some bugs persists for quite long time. There is also Milax — you can try look at that stuff as well. Pretty much nice and clean (so far). However, I prefer go with real stuff — OpenSolaris itself. It is very classic, sometimes too much conservative and IPS could have dependency resolver (when building an OS distro) and overall mirroring support. But on the other hand, if you want have something on a production, then I would not go experiments, if I were you. Hope this helps. -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] eon or nexentacore or opensolaris
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Anil Gulecha anil.ve...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, NCP's Desktop side components (X/Gnome/XFCE) is untested, and explains the issues. The focus is on the core.. and it has been so since the move from Gnusolaris (the older Gnome based Nexenta) to Nexenta Core platform. The idea was and remains that interested community members can build off it. Well, unfortunately I had some other problems, not just X11. However, thank you for the hint! Anyone add StormOS to the distrowatch, please? :) -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] eon or nexentacore or opensolaris
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Joe S js.li...@gmail.com wrote: EON ZFS NAS http://eonstorage.blogspot.com/ No idea. NexentaCore Platform (v2.0 RC3) http://www.nexenta.org/os/NexentaCore Personally, I tried it few times. For now, it is still too much broken for me yet and looks scary. Previous version is much more stable but also older. Newer v2.0 looks exactly like bleeding edge Debian old times: each time you run apt-get upgrade you have to use shaman's tambourine dancing around the fireplace. I don't remember exactly, but some packages are just broken and can not find dependencies, installation crashes, pollutes your system and can not be restored nicely etc. However, when it will be not that broken anymore, it must be a great distribution with excellent package management and very convenient to use. OpenSolaris 2009.06 (when it's released) I am running this one now on a multiple machines and so far seems like it is the best distro by its quality for such needs what you can have at the moment. -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS + USB media + mirror/raidz = weird
Hello, folks. kind of problem with mirrors and raidz. System config: — SunOS 5.11, snv_111a — Service system/filesystem/rmvolmgr is disabled. Hardware: — Asus EeePC Box B202 — Two USB 3.5 inches boxes. If I reboot: mirror or raidz works fine. But if I connect physical USB cables in different USB port, then I get my mirror (or raidz) completely screwed up. If I just shutdown the box, restore physical configuration — everything fubar and no errors reported. I took an output of zdb before and after cable swap, so that diff shows me only different txg on rpool (not related to my own pool of USB drives). Everything else is just identical. When zpool with USB drives are corrupted due to cables swap, zdb -uuu pool-name ENTER won't report anything, yelling that there are no such pool at all (although just zdb ENTER reports it exists). I understand, that there is a lot of steps, before ZFS see the drives. But... how come that USB cable swapping can affect ZFS corrupted to be like this? It somewhat does not sounds right to me in general: I assume ZFS must find disks by a labels, right? Anyone help me to understand what's going on here, please? If here is any hack/cure/idea/wish or at least necrology, please share as well. :-) Thanks a lot. -- Kind regards, bm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
