Re: [zfs-discuss] Missing zpool devices, what are the options
Quoth Mark Ashley on Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 11:35:57AM +1100: Is it possible to tell ZFS to forget those SE6140 LUNs ever belonged to the zpool? I know that ZFS will have probably put some user data on them, but if there is a possibility of recovering any of those zvols on the zpool it'd really help a lot, to put it mildly. My understanding is all the metadata will be spread around and polluted by now, even after a few days of the SE6140 LUNs being linked, but I thought I'd ask. No. I believe this is 4852783, reduce pool capacity, which hasn't been implemented yet. (I don't know whether it's being worked on.) I think your best bet is to copy off any data you can get to, and recreate the pool. David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] dfratime on zfs
Quoth Darren Dunham on Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 12:50:33PM -0700: But a traditional filesystem isn't going to write anything without a request. ZFS is constantly updating the pool/uberblock status the way things currently work. So even if you choose to defer the atime update until much longer, it won't prevent writes from being scheduled anyway. Why does ZFS update the uberblock when there are no writes? David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] netbsd client can mount zfs snapshot dir but it never updates
Quoth Ed Ravin on Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:57:52PM -0700: My Solaris 10 box is exporting a ZFS filesystem over NFS. I'm accessing the data with a NetBSD 3.1 client, which only supports NFS 3. Everything works except when I look at the .zfs/snapshot directory. The first time I list out the .zfs/snapshot directory, I get a correct listing of the contents. An hour later, when a snapshot has been deleted and a new one created, I still see the same listing. If I type in the name of the new snapshot manually, I can access it, but the contents of the .zfs/snapshot directory as seen by the NetBSD 3.1 box never changes (well, not in the last 24 hours since I started testing this). I'm not an NFS expert, but I do know that non-Solaris clients have had problems accessing the snapshot directory via NFSv3 in the past. See http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=45927#45927 . David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Trying to understand zfs RAID-Z
Quoth Steven Sim on Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:55:37AM +0800: Gurus; I am exceedingly impressed by the ZFS although it is my humble opinion that Sun is not doing enough evangelizing for it. What else do you think we should be doing? David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: [security-discuss] Thoughts on ZFS Secure Delete - without using Crypto
Quoth Darren J Moffat on Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 03:31:59PM +: Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: I like the idea, I really do, but it will be s expensive because of ZFS' COW model. Not only file removal or truncation will call bleaching, but every single file system modification... Heh, well, if privacy of your data is important enough, you probably don't care too much about performance. I'm not sure it will be that slow, the bleaching will be done in a separate (new) transaction group in most (probably all) cases anyway so it shouldn't really impact your write performance unless you are very I/O bound and already running near the limit. However this is speculation until someone tries to implement this! Bleaching previously used blocks will corrupt files pointed to by older uberblocks. I think that means that you'd have to verify that the new uberblock is readable before you proceed, since part of ZFS's fault tolerance is falling back to the most recent good uberblock if the latest one is corrupt. I don't think this makes bleaching unworkable, but the interplay will require analysis. David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz DEGRADED state
Quoth Thomas Garner on Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 06:41:15PM -0500: I currently have a 400GB disk that is full of data on a linux system. If I buy 2 more disks and put them into a raid-z'ed zfs under solaris, is there a generally accepted way to build an degraded array with the 2 disks, copy the data to the new filesystem, and then move the original disk to complete the array? No, because we currently can't add disks to a raidz array. You could create a mirror instead and then add in the other disk to make a three-way mirror, though. Even doing that would be dicey if you only have a single machine, though, since Solaris can't natively read the popular Linux filesystems. I believe there is freeware to do it, but nothing supported. David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on production servers with SLA
Quoth Darren J Moffat on Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 01:59:16PM +0100: Nicolas Dorfsman wrote: Regarding system partitions (/var, /opt, all mirrored + alternate disk), what would be YOUR recommendations ? ZFS or not ? /var for now must be UFS since Solaris 10 doesn't not have ZFS root support and that means /, /etc/, /var/, /usr. Once 6354489 was fixed, I believe Stephen Hahn got zfs-on-/usr working. That might be painful to upgrade, though. I've run systems with /opt as a ZFS filesystem and it works just fine. However note that the Solaris installed puts stuff in /opt (for backwards compat reasons, ideally it wouldn't) and that may cause issues with live upgrade or require you to move that stuff onto your ZFS /opt datasets. I also use zfs for /opt. I have to unmount it before using Live Upgrade, though, because it refuses to leave /opt on a separate filesystem. I suppose it's right, since the package database may refer to files in /opt, but I haven't had any problems. David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] howto reduce ?zfs introduced? noise
Quoth Thomas Maier-Komor on Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 04:19:11AM -0700: after switching over to zfs from ufs for my ~/ at home, I am a little bit disturbed by the noise the disks are making. To be more precise, I always have thunderbird and firefox running on my desktop and either or both seem to be writing to my ~/ at short intervals and ZFS flushes these transactions at intervals about 2-5 seconds to the disks. In contrast UFS seems to be doing a little bit more aggressive caching, which reduces disk noise. I'd bet that this is due to your applications repeatedly reading some file, for which ZFS updates the atime, which requires writing more blocks than with UFS. In which case you could fix it by mounting with noatime, but that's probably not a great idea. David ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
