Re: [zfs-discuss] is it possible to add a mirror device later?
Does 'zpool attach' enough for a root pool? I mean, does it install GRUB bootblocks on the disk? On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Robert Milkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Tommaso, > > Wednesday, July 2, 2008, 1:04:06 PM, you wrote: > the root filesystem of my thumper is a ZFS with a single disk: > > > is it possible to add a mirror to it? I seem to be able only to add a new > PAIR of disks in mirror, but not to add a mirror to the existing disk ... > zpool attach -- Rasputnik :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Microsoft WinFS for ZFS?
Have you ever used a Mac? HFS has had these features for years. On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Bryan Wagoner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, having a database on top of an FS is really useful. It's a Content > Addressable Storage system.One of the problem home users have is that > they are putting more and more of their lives in digital format. Users need > a way to organize and search all that info in some sort of meaningful way. > Imagine having thousands of photos spread all over your filesystems with > nothing but filenames associated with them. That's not too easily searchable > or organized. > > Imagine all the objects stored on your filesystem have tags associated with > them or other metadata that is required at save time. Then you can start > doing things like virtual folders. Imagine a folder on your windows desktop > that says "Steely Dan" and when you click it runs a query shows you all the > music files on your computer by Steely Dan and pretends to be an explorer > windows. or a virtual folder that says "Springbreak 2008 pics" and when you > click it it goes through all your gagillion photos and creates an explorer > window of just the spring break pics. > > Today, you'd have to tag the Metadata yourself as you put content on your > computer, but Microsoft has other initiatives to do facial recognition in > photos and some other things to go along with the Content addressable storage > system. > > There's a lot of uses for Content Addressable Storage systems including > revision control and some other things that home users can benefit from. At > the Enterprise level, such a system would be something like the > 5800(Honeycomb) from Sun. > > > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > -- Rasputnik :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS
On Dec 6, 2007 1:13 AM, Bakul Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that I don't wish to argue for/against zfs/billtodd but > the comment above about "no *real* opensource software > alternative zfs automating checksumming and simple > snapshotting" caught my eye. > > There is an open source alternative for archiving that works > quite well. venti has been available for a few years now. > It runs on *BSD, linux, macOS & plan9 (its native os). It > uses strong crypto checksums, stored separately from the data > (stored in the pointer blocks) so you get a similar guarantee > against silent data corruption as ZFS. Last time I looked into Venti, it used content hashing to locate storage blocks. Which was really cool, because (as you say) it magically consolidates blocks with the same checksum together. The 45 byte score is the checksum of the top of the tree, isn't that right? Good to hear it's still alive and been revamped somewhat. ZFS snapshots and clones save a lot of space, but the 'content-hash == address' trick means you could potentially save much more. Though I'm still not sure how well it scales up - Bigger working set means you need longer (more expensive) hashes to avoid a collision, and even then its not guaranteed. When i last looked they were still using SHA-160 and I ran away screaming at that point :) > Google for "venti sean dorward". If interested, go to > http://swtch.com/plan9port/ and pick up plan9port (a > collection of programs from plan9, not just venti). See > http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man8/index.html for how to use > venti. -- Rasputnik :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs mirroring question
On Dec 5, 2007 9:54 PM, Brian Lionberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I create two zfs's on one pool of four disks with two mirrors, such as... > / > zpool create tank mirror disk1 disk2 mirror disk3 disk4 > > zfs create tank/fs1 > zfs create tank/fs2/ > > Are fs1 and fs2 striped across all four disks? Yes - they're striped across both the mirrors (and so across all 4 submirrors). > If two disks fail that represent a 2-way mirror, do I lose data?. Hell yes. -- Rasputnik :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to create ZFS pool ?
Just a +1 - I use an fdisk partition for my zpool and it works fine (plan was to dual-boot with freebsd and this makes the vdevs slightly easier to address from both OSes). zpool doesn't care what the partition ID is, just give it zpool create gene c0d0pN ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] CIFS and user-visible snapshots
Does anybody know if the upcoming CIFS integration in b77 will provide a mechanism for users to see snapshots (like .zfs/snapshot/ does for NFS)? -- Rasputnik :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SXDE vs Solaris 10u4 for a home file server
On 04/11/2007, Ima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm setting up a home file server, which will mainly just consist of a ZFS > pool and access with SAMBA. I'm not sure if I should use SXDE for this, or > Sol 10u4. Does SXDE offer any ZFS improvements over 10u4 for this purpose? I'd be inclined to go for SXCE rather than SXDE myself - mainly because there are good things around the corner (CIFS integration being the obvious one for a NAS) that you'll be able to try out sooner that way. > My hardware is supported under both platforms. Additionally, with SXDE I > worry that I may spend more time maintaining the OS, and about the > availability of upgrades for it over the next 5-10 years, so I'm not really > sure which would be better in the long run. For a home NAS, I wouldn't worry much about maintenance taking a lot of time. It's up you whether you need a bleeding edge feature or not, but it's nice to have the option. My router is takes much less work than a server would, but only because Linksys are slackers when it comes to firmware updates; the kernel/firewall it's built with must be horribly outdated by now. -- Rasputnik :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [osol-help] Squid Cache on a ZFS file system
On 29/10/2007, Tek Bahadur Limbu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I created a ZFS file system like the following with /mypool/cache being > the partition for the Squid cache: > > 18:51:27 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ zfs list > NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT > mypool 478M 31.0G 10.0M /mypool > mypool/cache 230M 9.78G 230M /mypool/cache > mypool/home226M 31.0G 226M /export/home > > Note: I only have a few days of experience on Solaris and I might have > made some mistakes with the above ZFS partitions! No, that looks ok. You can just 'zfs set quota= mypool/cache' to be bigger in the future if need be. > Basically, I want to know if somebody here on this list is using a ZFS > file system for a proxy cache and what will be it's performance? Will it > improve and degrade Squid's performance? Or better still, is there any > kind of benchmark tools for ZFS performance? filebench sounds like it'd be useful for you. It's coming in the next Nevada release, but since it looks like you're on Solaris 10, take a look at: http://blogs.sun.com/erickustarz/entry/filebench Remember to 'zfs set atime=off mypool/cache' - there's no need for it for squid caches. -- Rasputnik :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs won't import a pool automatically at boot
On 16/10/2007, Michael Goff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > When jumpstarting s10x_u4_fcs onto a machine, I have a postinstall script > which does: > > zpool create tank c1d0s7 c2d0s7 c3d0s7 c4d0s7 > zfs create tank/data > zfs set mountpoint=/data tank/data > zpool export -f tank Try without the '-f' ? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] case 37962758 - zfs can't destroy Sol10U4
On 16/10/2007, Renato Ferreira de Castro - Sun Microsystems - Gland Switzerland > What he try to do : > --- > - re-mount and umount manually, then try to destroy. > # mount -F zfs zpool_dokeos1/dokeos1/home /mnt > # umount /mnt > # zfs destroy dokeos1_pool/dokeos1/home > cannot destroy 'dokeos1_pool/dokeos1/home': dataset is busy > > The file system is not mounted: I had the same thing on s10u3. Try zfs mount dokeos1_pool/dokeos1/home zfs umount dokeos1_pool/dokeos1/home zfs destroy dokeos1_pool/dokeos1/home -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Zone root on a ZFS filesystem and Cloning zones
On 11/10/2007, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, they aren't (i.e. zoneadm clone on S10u4 doesn't use zfs snapshots). > > I have a workaround I'm about to blog Here it is - hopefully be of some use: http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/10/11/fast-zone-cloning-on-solaris-10 -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Zone root on a ZFS filesystem and Cloning zones
No, they aren't (i.e. zoneadm clone on S10u4 doesn't use zfs snapshots). I have a workaround I'm about to blog, the gist of which is make the 'template' zone on zfs boot, configure, etc. zonecfg -z template detach zfs snapshot tank/zones/[EMAIL PROTECTED] zfs clone tank/zones/[EMAIL PROTECTED] tank/zones/clone zonecfg -z clone 'create -a /zones/clone' zoneadm -z clone attach Will post the URL once I pull my finger out. On 11/10/2007, Tony Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Does anyone have an update on the support of having a zones root on a > zfs filesystem with Solaris update 4? The only information that I have > seen so far is that it was planned for late 2007 or early 2008. > > Also I was hoping to use the snapshot and clone capabilities of zfs to > clone zones as a faster deployment method for new zones, is this > supported and if not when is it likely to be supported? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Fileserver performance tests
Hi Thomas the point I was making was that you'll see low performance figures with 100 concurrent threads. If you set nthreads to something closer to your expected load, you'll get a more accurate figure. Also, there's a new filebench out now, see http://blogs.sun.com/erickustarz/entry/filebench will be integrated into Nevada in b76, according to Eric. On 09/10/2007, Thomas Liesner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi again, > > i did not want to compare the filebench test with the single mkfile command. > Still, i was hoping to see similar numbers in the filbench stats. > Any hints what i could do to further improve the performance? > Would a raid1 over two stripes be faster? > > TIA, > Tom > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Fileserver performance tests
On 08/10/2007, Thomas Liesner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ./filebench > filebench> load fileserver > filebench> run 60 > IO Summary: 8088 ops 8017.4 ops/s, (997/982 r/w) 155.6mb/s,508us > cpu/op, 0.2ms > 12746: 65.266: Shutting down processes > filebench>[/i] > > I expected to see some higher numbers really... > a simple "time mkfile 16g lala" gave me something like 280Mb/s. > > Would anyone comment on this? If you set $nthreads=1 (which is closer to a single mkfile command) you'll probably find it's much faster. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] safe zfs-level snapshots with a UFS-on-ZVOL filesystem?
I had some trouble installing a zone on ZFS with S10u4 (bug in the postgres packages) that went away when I used a ZVOL-backed UFS filesystem for the zonepath. I thought I'd push on with the experiment (in the hope Live Upgrade would be able to upgrade such a zone). It's a bit unwieldy, but everything worked reasonably well - performance isn't much worse than straight ZFS (it gets much faster with compression enabled, but that's another story). The only fly in the ointment is that ZVOL level snapshots don't capture unsynced data up at the FS level. There's a workaround at: http://blogs.sun.com/pgdh/entry/taking_ufs_new_places_safely but I wondered if there was anything else that could be done to avoid having to take such measures? I don't want to stop writes to get a snap, and I'd really like to avoid UFS snapshots if at all possible. I tried mounting forcedirectio in the (mistaken) belief that this would bypass the UFS buffer cache, but it didn't help. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS booting with Solaris (2007-08)
On 30/09/2007, William Papolis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, > > I guess using this ... > > set md:mirrored_root_flag=1 > > for Solaris Volume Manager (SVM) is not supported and could cause problems. > > I guess it's back to my first idea ... > > With 2 disks, setup three SDR's (State Database Replicas) >Drive 0 = 1 SDR -> If this drive fails auto-magically boot DRIVE 1 >Drive 1 = 2 SDR's -> If this drive fails Sysadmin intervention required > > Well that's OK, at least 50% of the time the system won't KACK. What you gain on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts. But if you lose drive 1 when the system is running, it'll now panic (whereas with 50% of quorum, it will continue to run). -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] O.T. "patches" for OpenSolaris
On 30/09/2007, William Papolis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Henk, > > By upgrading do you mean, rebooting and installing Open Solaris from DVD or > Network? > > Like, no Patch Manager install some quick patches and updates and a quick > reboot, right? You can live upgrade and then do a quick reboot: http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/08/08/solaris-laptop-live-upgrade -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] When I stab myself with this knife, it hurts... But - should it kill me?
On 04/10/2007, Nathan Kroenert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Client A > - import pool make couple-o-changes > > Client B > - import pool -f (heh) > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie ^Mpanic[cpu0]/thread=ff0002b51c80: > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 603766 kern.notice] assertion > failed: dmu_read(os, smo->smo_object, offset, size, entry_map) == 0 (0x5 > == 0x0) > , file: ../../common/fs/zfs/space_map.c, line: 339 > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie unix: [ID 10 kern.notice] > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51160 > genunix:assfail3+b9 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51200 > zfs:space_map_load+2ef () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51240 > zfs:metaslab_activate+66 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51300 > zfs:metaslab_group_alloc+24e () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b513d0 > zfs:metaslab_alloc_dva+192 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51470 > zfs:metaslab_alloc+82 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b514c0 > zfs:zio_dva_allocate+68 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b514e0 > zfs:zio_next_stage+b3 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51510 > zfs:zio_checksum_generate+6e () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51530 > zfs:zio_next_stage+b3 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b515a0 > zfs:zio_write_compress+239 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b515c0 > zfs:zio_next_stage+b3 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51610 > zfs:zio_wait_for_children+5d () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51630 > zfs:zio_wait_children_ready+20 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51650 > zfs:zio_next_stage_async+bb () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51670 > zfs:zio_nowait+11 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51960 > zfs:dbuf_sync_leaf+1ac () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b519a0 > zfs:dbuf_sync_list+51 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51a10 > zfs:dnode_sync+23b () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51a50 > zfs:dmu_objset_sync_dnodes+55 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51ad0 > zfs:dmu_objset_sync+13d () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51b40 > zfs:dsl_pool_sync+199 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51bd0 > zfs:spa_sync+1c5 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51c60 > zfs:txg_sync_thread+19a () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie genunix: [ID 655072 kern.notice] ff0002b51c70 > unix:thread_start+8 () > Oct 4 15:03:12 fozzie unix: [ID 10 kern.notice] > Is this a known issue, already fixed in a later build, or should I bug it? It shouldn't panic the machine, no. I'd raise a bug. > After spending a little time playing with iscsi, I have to say it's > almost inevitable that someone is going to do this by accident and panic > a big box for what I see as no good reason. (though I'm happy to be > educated... ;) You use ACLs and TPGT groups to ensure 2 hosts can't simultaneously access the same LUN by accident. You'd have the same problem with Fibre Channel SANs. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best option for my home file server?
On 26/09/2007, Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm about to build a fileserver and I think I'm gonna use OpenSolaris and ZFS. > > I've got a 40GB PATA disk which will be the OS disk, Would be nice to remove that as a SPOF. I know ZFS likes whole disks, but I wonder how much would performance suffer if you SVMed up the first few Gb of a ZFS mirror pair for your root fs? I did it this week on Solaris 10 and it seemed to work pretty well ( http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/09/27/solaris-10-on-mirrored-disks ) Roll on ZFS root :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Fwd: "zoneadm clone" doesn't support ZFS snapshots in
Bah, wrong list. A timeline would be really nice for when this is likely to be sorted out - higher priority than ZFS root IMO. -- Forwarded message -- From: Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 22 Sep 2007 23:21 Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] "zoneadm clone" doesn't support ZFS snapshots in To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 21/09/2007, Mike Gerdts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would really like to ask Sun for a roadmap as to when this is going > to be supported. The best way around this I can think of is to have a 'template' zone for cloning on UFS that you use to build your other (ZFS-backed) zones. Then delegate a dataset into each zone to hold the important stuff. Come upgrade time, you drop all the 'child' zones, patch the template and use it to re-provision the other zones. Then drop the dataset back in. Course, it'll take a while to clone the template since it's UFS-backed... -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] compression=on and zpool attach
On 11/09/2007, Mike DeMarco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've got 12Gb or so of db+web in a zone on a ZFS > > filesystem on a mirrored zpool. > > Noticed during some performance testing today that > > its i/o bound but > > using hardly > > any CPU, so I thought turning on compression would be > > a quick win. > > If it is io bound won't compression make it worse? Well, the CPUs are sat twiddling their thumbs. I thought reducing the amount of data going to disk might help I/O - is that unlikely? > > benefit of compression > > on the blocks > > that are copied by the mirror being resilvered? > > No! Since you are doing a block for block mirror of the data, this would not > could not compress the data. No problem, another job for rsync then :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] compression=on and zpool attach
I've got 12Gb or so of db+web in a zone on a ZFS filesystem on a mirrored zpool. Noticed during some performance testing today that its i/o bound but using hardly any CPU, so I thought turning on compression would be a quick win. I know I'll have to copy files for existing data to be compressed, so I was going to make a new filesystem, enable compression and rysnc everything in, then drop the old filesystem and mount the new one (with compressed blocks) in its place. But I'm going to be hooking in faster LUNs later this week. The plan was to remove half of the mirror, attach a new disk, remove the last old disk and attach the second half of the mirror (again on a faster disk). Will this do the same job? i.e. will I see the benefit of compression on the blocks that are copied by the mirror being resilvered? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] remove snapshots
On 18/08/07, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Blake wrote:
> > Now I'm curious.
> >
> > I was recursively removing snapshots that had been generated recursively
> > with the '-r' option. I'm running snv65 - is this a recent feature?
>
> No; it was integrated in snv_43, and is in s10u3. See:
>
> PSARC 2006/388 snapshot -r
> 6373978 want to take lots of snapshots quickly ('zfs snapshot -r')
I think he was asking about recursive destroy, rather than create.
I know recursive rename went in at b63, because it saves me a lot of
work :)
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS boot: another way
I've found it's fairly easy to trim down a 'core' install, installing to a temporary UFS root, doing the ufs -> zfs thing, and then re-use the old UFS slice as swap. Obviously you need a separate /boot slice in this setup. On 03/07/07, Douglas Atique <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm afraid the Solaris installer won't let me stop the process just before it > starts copying files to the target filesystem. It would be very nice to get > away with the UFS slice altogether, but between filesystem creation and > initialisation (which seems mandatory) and copying there is no pause where I > could open a terminal and do the trick. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS usb keys
Thanks to everyone for the sanity check - I think it's a platform issue, but not an endian one. The stick was originally DOS-formatted, and the zpool was built on the first fdisk partition. So Sparcs aren't seeing it, but the x86/x64 boxes are. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS usb keys
I used a zpool on a usb key today to get some core files off a non-networked Thumper running S10U4 beta. Plugging the stick into my SXCE b61 x86 machine worked fine; I just had to 'zpool import sticky' and it worked ok. But when we attach the drive to a blade 100 (running s10u3), it sees the pool as corrupt. I thought I'd been too hasty pulling out the stick, but it works ok back in the b61 desktop and Thumper. I'm trying to figure out if this is an endian thing (which I thought ZFS was immune from) - or has the b61 machine upgraded the zpool format? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Mac OS X "Leopard" to use ZFS
On 08/06/07, BVK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/8/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > When should we expect Solaris kernel under OS X? 10.6? 10.7? :-) > I think its quite possible. I believe, very soon they will ditch their Mach based (?) BSD and switch to solaris. I think that's extremely unlikely. Only the OSX userland is BSD like, and I'm not sure what replacing that would gain them. Why would they want a Solaris kernel? File based CDDL license seems like a right choice to a company like Apple. My only worry is, Apple never works in open, so their improvements may never get back into the community. Apple have given plenty back to the BSD projects (although nothing required them to). -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Preparing to compare Solaris/ZFS and FreeBSD/ZFS performance.
On 24/05/07, Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't know about FreeBSD PORTS, but NetBSD's ports system works very well on solaris. The only thing I didn't like about it is it considers gcc a dependency to certain things, so even though I have Studio 11 installed, it would insist on installing gcc, which kinda irritated me. :) pkgsrc is ok, but I found it got very messy very quickly once you get a reasonably sized dependency tree. portugrade. FreeBSD portupgrade (a layer on top of ports, but easy to install) handled that much better. To be fair I haven't used NetBSD in a couple of years - but pkgsrc was the reason I left :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Rsync update to ZFS server over SSH faster than over NFS?
Take off every ZIL! http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/02/12/zil-communication On 22/05/07, Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:11:36PM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 06:09:46PM -0500, Albert Chin wrote: > > But still, how is tar/SSH any more multi-threaded than tar/NFS? > > It's not that it is, but that NFS sync semantics and ZFS sync > semantics conspire against single-threaded performance. What's why we have "set zfs:zfs_nocacheflush = 1" in /etc/system. But, that's only helps ZFS. Is there something similar for NFS? -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Automatic rotating snapshots
Hi Malachi Tims SMF bits work well (and also supports remote backups (via send/recv)). I use something like the process laid out at the bottom of: http://blogs.sun.com/mmusante/entry/rolling_snapshots_made_easy because it's dirt-simple and easily understandable. On 10/05/07, Malachi de Ælfweald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I was thinking of setting up rotating snapshots... probably do pool/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Is Tim's method ( http://blogs.sun.com/timf/entry/zfs_automatic_snapshots_0_8 ) the current preferred plan? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop
On 17/04/07, Rayson Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/17/07, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for
> desktop use ("who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop
> machine?!") doesn't get it.
Well, for many of those who find it hard to upgrade Windows, I guess
you will have a hard time teaching them how to use ZFS.
I doubt it - google around for some Time Machine mockups. Apple will sell
this easily.
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)
On 17/04/07, Erik Trimble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And, frankly, I can think of several very good reasons why Sun would NOT want to release a ZFS under the GPL Not to mention the knock-on effects of those already using ZFS (apple, BSD) who would be adversely affected by a GPL license. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] status of zfs boot netinstall kit
On 13/04/07, Lori Alt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: sparc support is in the works. We're waiting on some other development work going on right now in the area of sparc booting in general (not specific to zfs booting, although the zfs boot loader is part of that project). I can't give you a date right now, but zfs boot will defintely be supported on sparc as well as x86. Excellent work, thanks Lori. Am I right in thinking the Sparc delay is down to openboot (licensing issue)? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux
On 13/04/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has absolutely nothing to say about what you do with YOUR code. Until my code comes into contact with yours - that's the 'viral' bit. (Yes, I can aviod all contact with GPL code, just as I can stay away from someone with the flu, but it doesn't mean they don't have the flu). And it's not only Microsoft who have a problem with it - it's anyone who wants to keep their changes private for some reason. I've read embedded linux technical books that had to spend 2 chapters explaining how to tiptoe around the GPL - life is too short for that sort of rubbish. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended setup?
Just saw a message on xen-discuss that HVM is in the next version (b60-ish). On 15/03/07, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't Solaris dom0 does Pacifica (amd-v) yet. That would rule out windows for now. You can run centOS zones on SXCR. That just leaves freebsd (which hasn't got fantastic xen support either, despite Kip Macys excellent work). Unless you've got an app that needs that, zones sound like a much saner bet to me. On 13/03/07, Malachi de Ælfweald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had thought about it, but from what I understand that limits the other VMs > to Solaris. I have a few different administrators that are going to be > running their own OSes (freebsd, linux, possibly windows), as well as some > development ones (like jnode). From what I was able to find, that means > that I need to run Xen with the newer AMD-V featureset; thus the reason for > the new board and cpus. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Recommended setup?
I don't Solaris dom0 does Pacifica (amd-v) yet. That would rule out windows for now. You can run centOS zones on SXCR. That just leaves freebsd (which hasn't got fantastic xen support either, despite Kip Macys excellent work). Unless you've got an app that needs that, zones sound like a much saner bet to me. On 13/03/07, Malachi de Ælfweald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I had thought about it, but from what I understand that limits the other VMs to Solaris. I have a few different administrators that are going to be running their own OSes (freebsd, linux, possibly windows), as well as some development ones (like jnode). From what I was able to find, that means that I need to run Xen with the newer AMD-V featureset; thus the reason for the new board and cpus. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: update on zfs boot support
On 12/03/07, Darren Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 11:21:13AM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote: > > On March 11, 2007 6:05:13 PM + Tim Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >* ability to add disks to mirror the root filesystem at any time, > > > should they become available > > > > Can't this be done with UFS+SVM as well? A reboot would be required > > but you have to do regular reboots anyway just for patching. *if* you already have the root filesystem under SVM in the first place, then no reboot should be required to add a mirror. And I assume that's all we're talking about for the ZFS mirroring as well. Is there any reason you'd have SVM on just the one partition? I can see why you'd do that with ZFS (snapshot, compression, etc). -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] NFS share problem with mac os x client
OSX *loves* NFS - it's a lot faster than Samba - but you need a bit of extra work. You need a user on the other end with the right uid and gid (assuming you're using NFSv3 - you probably are). Have a look at : http://number9.hellooperator.net/articles/2007/01/12/zfs-for-linux-and-osx-and-windows-and-bsd (especially the 'create a user' bit). On 07/02/07, Kevin Bortis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, I test right now the beauty of zfs. I have installed opensolaris on a spare server to test nfs exports. After creating tank1 with zpool and a subfilesystem with zfs tank1/nfsshare, I have set the option sharenfs=on to tank1/nfsshare. With Mac OS X as client I can mount the filesystem in Finder.app with nfs://server/tank1/nfsshare, but if I copy a file an error ocours. Finder say "The operation cannot be completed because you do not have sufficient privileges for some of the items.". Until now I have shared the filesystems always with samba so I have almost no experience with nfs. Any ideas? Kevin This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Adding my own compression to zfs
Have a look at: http://blogs.sun.com/ahl/entry/a_little_zfs_hack On 27/01/07, roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: is it planned to add some other compression algorithm to zfs ? lzjb is quite good and especially performing very well, but i`d like to have better compression (bzip2?) - no matter how worse performance drops with this. regards roland This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: How much do we really want zpool remove?
On 25/01/07, Brian Hechinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The other point is, how many other volume management systems allow you to remove disks? I bet if the answer is not zero, it's not large. ;) Even Linux LVM can do this (with pvmove) - slow, but you can do it online. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool split
On 25/01/07, Adam Leventhal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 08:52:47PM +, Dick Davies wrote: > that's an excellent feature addition, look forward to it. > Will it be accompanied by a 'zfs join'? Out of curiosity, what will you (or anyone else) use this for? If the idea is to copy datasets to a new pool, why not use zfs send/receive? To clarify, I'm talking about 'zfs split' as in breaking /tank/export/home into /tank/export/home/user1 , /tank/export/home/user2, etc. The 'zfs join' is just an undo to help me out when I've been overzealous, every directory in my system is a filesystem, and I have more automated snapshots than I can stand... -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zpool split
On 23/01/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can you pick another name for this please because that name has already been suggested for zfs(1) where the argument is a directory in an existing ZFS file system and the result is that the directory becomes a new ZFS file system while retaining its contents. Sorry to jump in on the thread, but - that's an excellent feature addition, look forward to it. Will it be accompanied by a 'zfs join'? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] iSCSI on a single interface?
> On 15/01/07, Rick McNeal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Dick Davies wrote: > For the record, the reason I asked was we have an iscsi target host > with > 2 NICs and for some reason clients were attempting to connect to > the targets > on the private interface instead of the one they were doing > discovery on > (which I thought was a bit odd). This is due to a bug in the initiator. A prior change caused the discovery list, as returned from the SendTargets request, to be sorted in reverse order. The Solaris target goes out of it's way to return the address used to discover targets as the first address in the list of available IP addresses for any given target. So, if you had a public and private network and the discovery was done on the public network, the public network IP address is first. . This is something which is being fixed now. Great, thanks. > I tried creating a TPGT with iscsitadm, which seemed to work: > > vera ~ # iscsitadm list tpgt -v > TPGT: 1 >IP Address: 131.251.5.8 > > but adding a ZFS iscsi target into it gives me: > > vera ~ # iscsitadm modify target -p 1 tank/iscsi/second4gb > iscsitadm: Error Can't call daemon > > which is a pity (I'm assuming it can't find the targets to modify). This was an oversight on my part and should work. Actually, after running iscstadm create admin -d /somewhere assigning both 'handmade' and 'shareiscsi=on' LUNs to a TPGT seems ok, so presumably there just wasn't anywhere to record this information. Thanks again for the update. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] iSCSI on a single interface?
On 15/01/07, Rick McNeal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 15, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Dick Davies wrote: > Hi, are there currently any plans to make an iSCSI target created by > setting shareiscsi=on on a zvol > bindable to a single interface (setting tpgt or acls)? We're working on some more interface stuff for setting up various properties like TPGT's and ACL for the ZVOLs which are shared through ZFS. Now that I've knocked off a couple of things that have been on my plate I've got room to add some more. These definitely rank right up towards the top. Great news. For the record, the reason I asked was we have an iscsi target host with 2 NICs and for some reason clients were attempting to connect to the targets on the private interface instead of the one they were doing discovery on (which I thought was a bit odd). I tried creating a TPGT with iscsitadm, which seemed to work: vera ~ # iscsitadm list tpgt -v TPGT: 1 IP Address: 131.251.5.8 but adding a ZFS iscsi target into it gives me: vera ~ # iscsitadm modify target -p 1 tank/iscsi/second4gb iscsitadm: Error Can't call daemon which is a pity (I'm assuming it can't find the targets to modify). I've had to go back to just using iscsitadm due to time pressures, but will be watching any progress closely. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How much do we really want zpool remove?
On 18/01/07, Jeremy Teo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On the issue of the ability to remove a device from a zpool, how useful/pressing is this feature? Or is this more along the line of "nice to have"? It's very useful if you accidentally create a concat rather than mirror of an existing zpool. Otherwise you have to buy another drive :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] iSCSI on a single interface?
Hi, are there currently any plans to make an iSCSI target created by setting shareiscsi=on on a zvol bindable to a single interface (setting tpgt or acls)? I can cobble something together with ipfilter, but that doesn't give me enough granularity to say something like: 'host a can see target 1, host c can see targets 2-9', etc. Also, am I right in thinking without this, all targets should be visible on all interfaces? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Question: ZFS + Block level SHA256 ~= almost free CAS Squishing?
On 08/01/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think that in addition to lzjb compression, squishing blocks that contain the same data would buy a lot of space for administrators working in many common workflows. This idea has occurred to me too - I think there are definite advantages to 'block re-use'. When you start talking about multiple similar zones, I suspect substantial space savings could be made - and if you can re-use that saved storage to provide additional redundancy, everyone would be happy. Assumptions: SHA256 hash used (Fletcher2/4 have too many collisions, SHA256 is 2^128 if I remember correctly) SHA256 hash is taken on the data portion of the block as it exists on disk. the metadata structure is hashed separately. In the current metadata structure, there is a reserved bit portion to be used in the future. Description of change: Creates: The filesystem goes through its normal process of writing a block, and creating the checksum. Before the step where the metadata tree is pushed, the checksum is checked against a global checksum tree to see if there is any match. If match exists, insert a metadata placeholder for the block, that references the already existing block on disk, increment a number_of_links pointer on the metadata blocks to keep track of the pointers pointing to this block. free up the new block that was written and check-summed to be used in the future. else if no match, update the checksum tree with the new checksum and continue as normal. Unless I'm reading this wrong, this sounds a lot like Plan9s 'Venti' architecture ( http://cm.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/venti.html ) . But using a hash 'label' seems the wrong approach. ZFS is supposed to scale to terrifying levels, and the chances of a collision, however small, works against that. I wouldn't want to trade reliability for some extra space. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] creating zvols in a non-global zone (or 'Doctor, it hurts when I do this')
On 06/09/06, Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 04:23:32PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote: > > a) prevent attempts to create zvols in non-global zones > b) somehow allow it (?) or > c) Don't do That > > I vote for a) myself - should I raise an RFE? Yes, that was _supposed_ to be the original behavior, and I thought we had it working that way at one point. Apparently I'm imagining things, or it got broken somewhere along the way. Please file a bug. For the record, it's filed as : http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6498038 -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Production ZFS Server Death (06/06)
On 02/12/06, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Dec 2, 2006, at 10:56 AM, Al Hopper wrote: > On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: >> On Dec 2, 2006, at 6:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> When you have subtle corruption, some of the data and meta data is >> bad but not all. In that case you can recover (and verify the data >> if you have the means to do so) t he parts that did not get >> corrupted. My ZFS experience so far is that it basically said the >> whole 20GB pool was dead and I seriously doubt all 20GB was >> corrupted. > That was because you built a pool with no redundancy. In the case > where > ZFS does not have a redundant config from which to try to > reconstruct the > data (today) it simply says: sorry charlie - you pool is corrupt. Where a RAID system would still be salvageable. RAID level what? How is anything salvagable if you lose your only copy? ZFS does store multiple copies of metadata in a single vdev, so I assume we're talking about data here. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How do I obtain zfs with spare implementation?
On 30/11/06, Michael Barto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would like to update some of our Solaris 10 OS systems to the new zfs file system that supports spares. The Solaris 6/06 version does have zfs but does not have this feature. What is the best way to upgrade to this functionality? Hot spares are in Update 3, which was due out in November - so I'd expect it any day now. This e-mail may contain LogiQwest proprietary information and should be treated as confidential. Sigh. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 'legacy' vs 'none'
On 29/11/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 28/11/06, Terence Patrick Donoghue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a difference - Yep, > > 'legacy' tells ZFS to refer to the /etc/vfstab file for FS mounts and > options > whereas > 'none' tells ZFS not to mount the ZFS filesystem at all. Then you would > need to manually mount the ZFS using 'zfs set mountpoint=/mountpoint > poolname/fsname' to get it mounted. Thanks Terence - now you've explained it, re-reading the manpage makes more sense :) This is plain wrong though: " Zones A ZFS file system can be added to a non-global zone by using zonecfg's "add fs" subcommand. A ZFS file system that is added to a non-global zone must have its mountpoint property set to legacy." It has to be 'none' or it can't be delegated. Could someone change that? I've had one last go at understanding what the hell is going on, and what's *really* being complained about is the fact that the mountpoint attribute is inherited (regardless of whether the value is 'none' or 'legacy'). Explicitly setting the mountpoint lets the zone boot. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 'legacy' vs 'none'
On 28/11/06, Terence Patrick Donoghue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there a difference - Yep, 'legacy' tells ZFS to refer to the /etc/vfstab file for FS mounts and options whereas 'none' tells ZFS not to mount the ZFS filesystem at all. Then you would need to manually mount the ZFS using 'zfs set mountpoint=/mountpoint poolname/fsname' to get it mounted. Thanks Terence - now you've explained it, re-reading the manpage makes more sense :) This is plain wrong though: " Zones A ZFS file system can be added to a non-global zone by using zonecfg's "add fs" subcommand. A ZFS file system that is added to a non-global zone must have its mountpoint property set to legacy." It has to be 'none' or it can't be delegated. Could someone change that? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Re: 'legacy' vs 'none'
Just spotted one - is this intentional? You can't delegate a dataset to a zone if mountpoint=legacy. Changing it to 'none' works fine. vera / # zfs create tank/delegated vera / # zfs get mountpoint tank/delegated NAMEPROPERTYVALUE SOURCE tank/delegated mountpoint legacy inherited from tank vera / # zfs create tank/delegated/ganesh vera / # zfs get mountpoint tank/delegated/ganesh NAME PROPERTYVALUE SOURCE tank/delegated/ganesh mountpoint legacy inherited from tank vera / # zonecfg -z ganesh zonecfg:ganesh> add dataset zonecfg:ganesh:dataset> set name=tank/delegated/ganesh zonecfg:ganesh:dataset> end zonecfg:ganesh> commit zonecfg:ganesh> exit vera / # zoneadm -z ganesh boot could not verify zfs dataset tank/delegated/ganesh: mountpoint cannot be inherited zoneadm: zone ganesh failed to verify vera / # zfs set mountpoint=none tank/delegated/ganesh vera / # zoneadm -z ganesh boot vera / # On 28/11/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there a difference between setting mountpoint=legacy and mountpoint=none? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] 'legacy' vs 'none'
Is there a difference between setting mountpoint=legacy and mountpoint=none? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to backup/clone all filesystems *and* snapshots in a zpool?
On 16/11/06, Peter Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there some way to "dump" all information from a ZFS filesystem? I suppose I *could* backup the raw disk devices that is used by the zpool but that'll eat up a lot of tape space... If you want to have another copy somewhere, use zfs send/recv. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root
On 15/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I suppose it depends how 'catastrophic' the failture is, but if it's >very low level, >booting another root probabyl won't help, and if it's too high level, how will >you detect it (i.e. you've booted the kernel, but it is buggy). If it panics (but not too early) or fails to come up properly? Detecting 'come up properly' sounds hard (as in 'turing test hard') to me. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Fwd: [zfs-discuss] Thoughts on patching + zfs root
On 14/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Actually, we have considered this. On both SPARC and x86, there will be >a way to specify the root file system (i.e., the bootable dataset) to be >booted, >at either the GRUB prompt (for x86) or the OBP prompt (for SPARC). >If no root file system is specified, the current default 'bootfs' specified >in the root pool's metadata will be booted. But it will be possible to >override the default, which will provide that "fallback" boot capability. I was thinking of some automated mechanism such as: - BIOS which, when reset during POST, will switch to safe defaults and enter setup - Windows which, when reset during boot, will offer safe mode at the next boot. I was thinking of something that on activation of a new boot environment would automatically fallback on catastrophic failure. Multiple grub entries would mitigate most risks (you can already define multiple boot archives pointing at different zfs root filesystems, it's just not automated). I suppose it depends how 'catastrophic' the failture is, but if it's very low level, booting another root probabyl won't help, and if it's too high level, how will you detect it (i.e. you've booted the kernel, but it is buggy). -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS/iSCSI target integration
On 01/11/06, Rick McNeal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I too must be missing something. I can't imagine why it would take 5 minutes to online a target. A ZVOL should automatically be brought online since now initialization is required. s/now/no/ ? Thanks for the explanation. The '5 minute online' issue I had was with a file-based target (which happened to be on a ZFS filesystem). From what you say, it should be a non-issue with a zvol-backed target. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS/iSCSI target integration
On 01/11/06, Cyril Plisko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11/1/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 01/11/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And we'll be able to use sparse zvols > > for this too (can't think why we couldn't, but it'd be dead handy)? > > Thinking about this, we won't be able to (without some changes) - > I think a target is zero-filled before going online > (educated guess: it takes 5 minutes to 'online' a target, > and it consumes virtually no space in the parent zvol if compression is on), > so a sparse zvol would exhaust zpool space. Looking at the code it doesn't seem like the backing store being zeroed. In case of regular file a single sector (512 byte) of uninitialized data from stack (bad practice ?) is written to the very end of the file. And in case of character device it isn't written at all. zvol should fall into char device category. See mgmt_create.c::setup_disk_backing() Or did I miss something ? I'm not the one to ask :) I'm just saying what I've seen - it was SXCR b49, and a ZFS filesystem, not a zvol as I said (seems iscsi targets are file backed by default). Still took a few minutes to online a new target, so it was doing something, but I don't know what. If it's a non-issue that'd be great, -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS/iSCSI target integration
On 01/11/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And we'll be able to use sparse zvols for this too (can't think why we couldn't, but it'd be dead handy)? Thinking about this, we won't be able to (without some changes) - I think a target is zero-filled before going online (educated guess: it takes 5 minutes to 'online' a target, and it consumes virtually no space in the parent zvol if compression is on), so a sparse zvol would exhaust zpool space. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS/iSCSI target integration
On 01/11/06, Adam Leventhal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rick McNeal and I have been working on building support for sharing ZVOLs as iSCSI targets directly into ZFS. Below is the proposal I'll be submitting to PSARC. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Adam Am I right in thinking we're effectively able to snapshot/clone iscsi targets now (by working on the underlying ZVOL)? And we'll be able to use sparse zvols for this too (can't think why we couldn't, but it'd be dead handy)? This will be extremely useful, thanks. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Current status of a ZFS root
On 28/10/06, Mike Gerdts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/28/06, Dick Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://solaristhings.blogspot.com/2006/06/zfs-root-on-solaris-part-2.html The original question was about using ZFS root on a T1000. /grub looks suspiciously incompatible with the T1000 because it isn't x86. I've heard rumors of brining grub to sparc, but... Whoops, walked in halfway :) Tabriz reference is also x86 specific, I believe. Thanks for the catch. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Current status of a ZFS root
On 27/10/06, Christopher Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You can manually set up a ZFS root environment but it requires a UFS partition to boot off of. See: http://blogs.sun.com/tabriz/entry/are_you_ready_to_rumble There's a slightly improved procedure at http://solaristhings.blogspot.com/2006/06/zfs-root-on-solaris-part-2.html It uses a /grub partition rather than a full root FS to boot from - you still need a UFS / for the initial install, but after the first boot into ZFS you can reformat that and use it for swap or whatever. Also a nice section on how to clone your root fs and boot off that (which is great for testing new releases now we have 'zfs promote'). -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs set sharenfs=on
On 24/10/06, Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 08:01:21PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote: > Shouldn't a ZFS share be permanently enabling NFS? # svcprop -p application/auto_enable nfs/server true This property indicates that regardless of the current state of nfs/server, if you invoke share(1M) (either manually or through 'zfs share -a'), then the server will be automatically started. All three (nfs/status, nfs/nlockmgr and nfs/server) have auto_enable, uh, enabled. By default, the system should have been in this state, with nfs/server enabled but temporarily disabled. Did you explicity 'svcadm disable nfs/server' beforehand? That sounds like something I'd do to be honest, but in this case I wrote down all the steps I've taken from the inital install, through the ZFS root setup, etc. in a journal, so I don' t think so. I have been frobbing settings trying to get a linux client to understand what NFS4 is however, so I may well have toggled this to try to get the client to see the share. So if someone has explicitly switched off NFS, ZFS won't turn it back on (even if sharenfs=on for a share)? After a reboot, a 'svcs -xv' showed nfs/server as not running because its dependencies (nfs/status and nfs/lockmgr) weren't. Enabling those two seemed to fix it. I wondered if maybe ZFS didn't make sure they were running. I'm happy to attribute this one to incompetence for now. ZFS certainly could do the equivalent of a 'svcadm enable nfs/server', but it shouldn't need to, nor is it clear that ZFS should do anything different than if you had placed something into /etc/dfs/dfstab. That's partly what I was asking - whether ZFS should dictate 'thou must run this service for me' to the system as a whole or not. Thanks for the explanation. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs set sharenfs=on
I started sharing out zfs filesystems via NFS last week using sharenfs=on. That seems to work fine until I reboot. Turned out the NFS server wasn't enabled - I had to enable nfs/server, nfs/lockmgr and nfs/status manually. This is a stock SXCR b49 (ZFS root) install - don't think I'd changed anything much. Shouldn't a ZFS share be permanently enabling NFS? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Where is the ZFS configuration data stored?
On 14/10/06, Darren Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So the warnings I've heard no longer apply? > If so, that's great. Thanks for all replies. Umm, which warnings? The "don't import a pool on two hosts at once" definitely still applies. Sure :) I meant the reason I'd heard ( at http://solaristhings.blogspot.com/2006/06/zfs-root-on-solaris-part-3.html ) for adding zpool.cache to your failsafe miniroot, since a 'zpool import -f' on a 'root pool' meant the box wouldn't reboot cleanly. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Where is the ZFS configuration data stored?
On 12/10/06, Michael Schuster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ceri Davies wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 02:06:15PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote: >> I'd expect: >> >> zpool import -f >> >> (see the manpage) >> to probe /dev/dsk/ and rebuild the zpool.cache file, >> but my understanding is that this a) doesn't work yet or b) does >> horrible things to your chances of surviving a reboot [0]. > So how do I import a pool created on a different host for the first > time? zpool import [ -f ] (provided it's not in use *at the same time* by another host) So the warnings I've heard no longer apply? If so, that's great. Thanks for all replies. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Where is the ZFS configuration data stored?
On 12/10/06, Ceri Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:49:48PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote: > FYI, /etc/zfs/zpool.cache just tells us what pools to open when you boot > up. Everything else (mountpoints, filesystems, etc) is stored in the > pool itself. What happens if the file does not exist? Are the devices searched for metadata? My understanding (I'll be delighted if I'm wrong) is that you would be stuffed. I'd expect: zpool import -f (see the manpage) to probe /dev/dsk/ and rebuild the zpool.cache file, but my understanding is that this a) doesn't work yet or b) does horrible things to your chances of surviving a reboot [0]. This means that for zfs root and failsafe boots, you need to have a zpool.cache in your boot/miniroot archive (I probably have the terminology wrong) otherwise the boot will fail. I was asking if it was going to be replaced because it would really simplify ZFS root. Dick. [0] going from: http://solaristhings.blogspot.com/2006/06/zfs-root-on-solaris-part-3.html -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Where is the ZFS configuration data stored?
On 12/10/06, Michael Schuster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: James C. McPherson wrote: > Dick Davies wrote: >> On 12/10/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> FYI, /etc/zfs/zpool.cache just tells us what pools to open when you boot >>> up. Everything else (mountpoints, filesystems, etc) is stored in the >>> pool itself. >> >> Does anyone know of any plans or strategies to remove this dependancy? > > What do you suggest in its place? and why? what's your objection to the current scheme? Just the hassle of having to create a cache file in boot archives etc. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Where is the ZFS configuration data stored?
On 12/10/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FYI, /etc/zfs/zpool.cache just tells us what pools to open when you boot up. Everything else (mountpoints, filesystems, etc) is stored in the pool itself. Does anyone know of any plans or strategies to remove this dependancy? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On 11/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dick Davies wrote: > On 11/10/06, Peter van Gemert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You might want to check the HCL at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl to >> find out which hardware is supported by Solaris 10. > I tried that myself - there really isn't very much on there. > I can't believe Solaris runs on so little hardware (well, I know most of > my kit isn't on there), so I assume it isn't updated that much... There are tools around that can tell you if hardware is supported by Solaris. One such tool can be found at: http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.html That doesn't help with buying hardware though - I'm quite happy to buy hardware specifically for an OS (like I've always done for my BSD boxes and linux) but it's annoying to be forced to do trial and error . There is a process for submitting input back to Sun on driver testing I thought so (had that experience trying to get a variant of iprb added to device_aliases) and I can understand why, but an overly conservative HCL just feeds the 'Solaris supports hardly any hardware' argument against adoption. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS Inexpensive SATA Whitebox
On 11/10/06, Peter van Gemert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi There, You might want to check the HCL at http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl to find out which hardware is supported by Solaris 10. Greetings, Peter I tried that myself - there really isn't very much on there. I can't believe Solaris runs on so little hardware (well, I know most of my kit isn't on there), so I assume it isn't updated that much... My dream machine at the minute is a nice quiet athlon 64 x2 based sytem (probably one of the energy-efficient Windsors, so you get low heat and virtualization support). ZFS root mirror running iSCSI targets. Have yet to find a good recommendation for an AM2 based SATAII motherboard (although in dreamland, solaris has a solid Xen domain0 which takes advantage of Pacifica/AMDV hardware, so I doubt I'll need to make this reality before next Christmas :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs mirror resurrection
On 05/10/06, Richard Elling - PAE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dick Davies wrote: > I very foolishly decided to mirror /grub using SVM > (so I could boot easily if a disk died). Shrank swap partitions > to make somewhere to keep the SVM database (2 copies on each > disk). D'oh! N.B. this isn't needed, per se, just make a copy of /grub and the boot loader. Lesson learned :) It's not like /grub changes much, and if it does a simple rsync takes care of it. > How do I get rid of SVM from a zfs root system? The key change is in /etc/system where the rootfs is specified as the metadevice rather than the real device. Ah, thanks. N.B. if you only have 2 disks, then the test you performed will not work for SVM. I gathered :) - I've flattened the box. This time I'll bother to create the ZFS rescue bits in the howto I was working from. Thanks. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs mirror resurrection
Need a bit of help salvaging a perfectly working ZFS mirror that I've managed to render unbootable. I've had a ZFS root (x86, mirored zpool, SXCR b46 ) working fine for months. I very foolishly decided to mirror /grub using SVM (so I could boot easily if a disk died). Shrank swap partitions to make somewhere to keep the SVM database (2 copies on each disk). Rebooted and everything seemed ok. I booted with the second disk unplugged and SVM didn't seem to come up. ZFS showed the pool as degraded, as expected. Unplugged the first disk, tried another boot. Got as far as detecting the disks, then hangs. So the question - How do I get rid of SVM from a zfs root system? Will just clobbering the database partitions help (sounds easiest as it doesn't need a rescue kernel to be ZFS aware)? Otherwise, I'll need to mount the root filesystems out of the zpool to undo SVM - will a belenix live cd be enough? ISTR I need a zpool.cache before it'll see the pool at all. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Snapshotting a pool ?
Would 'zfs snapshot -r poolname' achieve what you want? On 29/09/06, Patrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, Is it possible to create a snapshot, for ZFS send purposes, of an entire pool ? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Newbie in ZFS
On 22/09/06, Alf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1) It's not possible anymore within a pool create a file system with a specific sizeIf I have 2 file systems I can't decide to give for example 10g to one and 20g to the other one unless I set a reservation for them. Also I tried to manually create pool with slices and have for each pool a FS with the size I wanted..Is that true? zfs set quota=5G poolname/fsname will give you a filesystem that shows up as 5GiB in 'df' - is that what you want? 2) I mirrored 2 disks within the same D1000 and while I was putting a big tar ball in the FS I tried to physically remove one mirror and You mean pull it out? Does your hardware support hotswap? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Possible file corruption on a ZFS mirror
That looks a bit serious - did you say both disks are on the same SATA controller? On 19/09/06, Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: # zpool status -v pool: tank state: ONLINE status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data corruption. Applications may be affected. action: Restore the file in question if possible. Otherwise restore the entire pool from backup. see: http://www.sun.com/msg/ZFS-8000-8A scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM tankONLINE 0 0 6 mirrorONLINE 0 0 6 c2d0s7 ONLINE 0 012 c3d0s7 ONLINE 0 012 errors: The following persistent errors have been detected: DATASET OBJECT RANGE 13 13 lvl=0 blkid=15787 13 19 lvl=0 blkid=3838 I format read scan didn't show up any errors. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] any update on zfs root/boot ?
On 14/09/06, James C. McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi folks, I'm in the annoying position of having to replace my rootdisk (since it's a [EMAIL PROTECTED]@$! maxtor and dying). I'm currently running with zfsroot after following Tabriz' and TimF's procedure to enable that. However, I'd like to know whether there's a better way to get zfs root/boot happening? The mini-ufs partition kludge is getting a bit tired :) I want for Doug Scotts : http://solaristhings.blogspot.com/2006/06/zfs-root-on-solaris-part-2.html which is only slighty different from Tabriz', It boots from a /grub partition, so doesn't need a ufs partition after the initial install (I'm reusing mine as swap). Whether you can get it working fresh off the CD is another matter :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] 'zfs mirror as backup' status?
Since we were just talking about resilience on laptops, I wondered if it there had been any progress in sorting some of the glitches that were involved in: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=25144戸 ? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data
On 13/09/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dick Davies wrote: > But they raise a lot of administrative issues Sure, especially if you choose to change the copies property on an existing filesystem. However, if you only set it at filesystem creation time (which is the recommended way), then it's pretty easy to address your issues: You're right, that would prevent getting into some nasty messes (I see this as closer to encryption than compression in that respect). I still feel we'd be doing the same job in several places. But I'm sure anyone who cares has a pretty good idea of my opinion, so I'll shut up now :) Thanks for taking the time to feedback on the feedback. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data
On 13/09/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dick Davies wrote: > For the sake of argument, let's assume: > > 1. disk is expensive > 2. someone is keeping valuable files on a non-redundant zpool > 3. they can't scrape enough vdevs to make a redundant zpool >(remembering you can build vdevs out of *flat files*) Given those assumptions, I think that the proposed feature is the perfect solution. Simply put those files in a filesystem that has copies>1. I don't think we disagree that multiple copies in ZFS are a good idea, I just think the zpool is the right place to do that. To clarify, I was addressing Celsos laptop scenario here - especially the idea that you can make a single disk redundant without any risks. (for bigger systems I'd just mirror at the zpool and have done). Also note that using files to back vdevs is not a recommended solution. Understood. But neither is mirroring on a single disk (which is what is effectively being suggested for laptop users using this solution). > If the user wants to make sure the file is 'safer' than others, he > can just make multiple copies. Either to a USB disk/flashdrive, cdrw, > dvd, ftp server, whatever. It seems to me that asking the user to solve this problem by manually making copies of all his files puts all the burden on the user/administrator and is a poor solution. You'll be being backing up your laptop anyway, aren't you? For one, they have to remember to do it pretty often. For two, when they do experience some data loss, they have to manually reconstruct the files! They could have one file which has part of it missing from copy A and part of it missing from copy B. I'd hate to have to reconstruct that manually from two different files, but the proposed solution would do this transparently. Are you likely to lose parts of both file at the same time, though? I'd say you're more likely to have one crap file and one good one. And you know which file is crap due to checksumming already. > I'm afraid I honestly think this greatly complicates the conceptual model > (not to mention the technical implementation) of ZFS, and I haven't seen > a convincing use case. Just for the record, these changes are pretty trivial to implement; less than 50 lines of code changed. But they raise a lot of administrative issues (how many copies do I really have? Where are they? Have they all been deleted? If I set this property, how many copies do I have now? How much disk will I get back if I delete fileX? How much disk do I bill zone admin foo for this month? How much disk io are ops on this filesystem likely to cause? How do I dtrace this?) I appreciate the effort and thought that's gone into it, not to mention a request for feedback. If I've not made that clear, I apologize. I'm just worried that it muddies the waters for everybody. The users (me too!) want mirror-level reliability on their laptops. I don't think this is the right way to get that feature, that's all. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data
On 12/09/06, Celso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think it has already been said that in many peoples experience, when a disk fails, it completely fails. Especially on laptops. Of course ditto blocks wouldn't help you in this situation either! Exactly. I still think that silent data corruption is a valid concern, one that ditto blocks would solve. > Also, I am not thrilled about losing that much space for duplication of unneccessary data (caused by partitioning a disk in two). Well, you'd only be duplicating the data on the mirror. If you don't want to mirror the base OS, no one's saying you have to. For the sake of argument, let's assume: 1. disk is expensive 2. someone is keeping valuable files on a non-redundant zpool 3. they can't scrape enough vdevs to make a redundant zpool (remembering you can build vdevs out of *flat files*) Even then, to my mind: to the user, the *file* (screenplay, movie of childs birth, civ3 saved game, etc.) is the logical entity to have a 'duplication level' attached to it, and the only person who can score that is the author of the file. This proposal says the filesystem creator/admin scores the filesystem. Your argument against unneccessary data duplication applies to all 'non-special' files in the 'special' filesystem. They're wasting space too. If the user wants to make sure the file is 'safer' than others, he can just make multiple copies. Either to a USB disk/flashdrive, cdrw, dvd, ftp server, whatever. The redundancy you're talking about is what you'd get from 'cp /foo/bar.jpg /foo/bar.jpg.ok', except it's hidden from the user and causing headaches for anyone trying to comprehend, port or extend the codebase in the future. I also echo Darren's comments on zfs performing better when it has the whole disk. Me too, but a lot of laptop users dual-boot, which makes it a moot point. Hopefully we can agree that you lose nothing by adding this feature, even if you personally don't see a need for it. Sorry, I don't think we're going to agree on this one :) I've seen dozens of project proposals in the few months I've been lurking around opensolaris. Most of them have been of no use to me, but each to their own. I'm afraid I honestly think this greatly complicates the conceptual model (not to mention the technical implementation) of ZFS, and I haven't seen a convincing use case. All the best Dick. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data
On 12/09/06, Celso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ...you split one disk in two. you then have effectively two partitions which you can then create a new mirrored zpool with. Then everything is mirrored. Correct? Everything in the filesystems in the pool, yes. With ditto blocks, you can selectively add copies (seeing as how filesystem are so easy to create on zfs). If you are only concerned with copies of your important documents and email, why should /usr/bin be mirrored. So my machine will boot if a disk fails. Which happened the other day :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Proposal: multiple copies of user data
On 12/09/06, Celso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One of the great things about zfs, is that it protects not just against mechanical failure, but against silent data corruption. Having this available to laptop owners seems to me to be important to making zfs even more attractive. I'm not arguing against that. I was just saying that *if* this was useful to you (and you were happy with the dubious resilience/performance benefits) you can already create mirrors/raidz on a single disk by using partitions as building blocks. There's no need to implement the proposal to gain that. Am I correct in assuming that having say 2 copies of your "documents" filesystem means should silent data corruption occur, your data can be reconstructed. So that you can leave your os and base applications with 1 copy, but your important data can be protected. Yes. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Proposal: multiple copies of user data
On 12/09/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dick Davies wrote: > The only real use I'd see would be for redundant copies > on a single disk, but then why wouldn't I just add a disk? Some systems have physical space for only a single drive - think most laptops! True - I'm a laptop user myself. But as I said, I'd assume the whole disk would fail (it does in my experience). If your hardware craps differently to mine, you could do a similar thing with partitions (or even files) as vdevs. Wouldn't be any less reliable. I'm still not Feeling the Magic on this one :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Proposal: multiple copies of user data
On 12/09/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here is a proposal for a new 'copies' property which would allow different levels of replication for different filesystems. Your comments are appreciated! Flexibility is always nice, but this seems to greatly complicate things, both technically and conceptually (sometimes, good design is about what is left out :) ). Seems to me this lets you say 'files in this directory are x times more valuable than files elsewhere'. Others have covered some of my concerns (guarantees, cleanup, etc.). In addition, * if I move a file somewhere else, does it become less important? * zpools let you do that already (admittedly with less granularity, but *much* *much* more simply - and disk is cheap in my world) * I don't need to do that :) The only real use I'd see would be for redundant copies on a single disk, but then why wouldn't I just add a disk? * disks are cheap, and creating a mirror from a single disk is very easy (and conceptually simple) * *removing* a disk from a mirror pair is simple too - I make mistakes sometimes * in my experience, disks fail. When you get bad errors on part of a disk, the disk is about to die. * you can already create a/several zpools using disk partitions as vdevs. That's not all that safe, and I don't see this being any safer. Sorry to be negative, but to me ZFS' simplicity is one of its major features. I think this provides a cool feature, but I question it's usefulness. Quite possibly I just don't have the particular itch this is intended to scratch - is this a much requested feature? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zoned datasets in zfs list
On 06/09/06, Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 03:53:52PM +0100, Dick Davies wrote: > That's a bit nicer, thanks. > Still not that clear which zone they belong to though - would > it be an idea to add a 'zone' property be a string == zonename ? Yes, this is possible, but it's annoying because the actual owning zone isn't stored with the dataset (nor should it be). We'd have to grovel around every zone's configuration file, which is certainly doable, just annoying. Oh God no. That's exactly what I wanted to avoid. Why wouldn't you want it stored in the dataset, out of interest? In addition, it's possible (though not recommended) to have a single dataset in multiple zones. Ah Ok, that explains why a single string wouldn't cut it (although it sounds insane to me)! The only real use case would be a read-only, unmounted dataset whose snapshots could serve as a clone source for other delegated datasets. I'm reading that as 'the only real use case for 1 dataset in multiple zones' (sorry if I'm misunderstanding you)? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] creating zvols in a non-global zone (or 'Doctor, it hurts when I do this')
A colleague just asked if zfs delegation worked with zvols too. Thought I'd give it a go and got myself in a mess (tank/linkfixer is the delegated dataset): [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # zfs create -V 500M tank/linkfixer/foo cannot create device links for 'tank/linkfixer/foo': permission denied cannot create 'tank/linkfixer/foo': permission denied Ok, so we'll try a normal filesystem: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # zfs create tank/linkfixer/foo cannot create 'tank/linkfixer/foo': dataset already exists [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT tank 2.09G 33.8G 24.5K legacy tank/linkfixer36.3M 9.96G 24.5K legacy tank/linkfixer/foo22.5K 9.96G 22.5K - [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # zfs destroy -f tank/linkfixer/foo cannot remove device links for 'tank/linkfixer/foo': permission denied [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT tank 2.09G 33.8G 24.5K legacy tank/linkfixer36.3M 9.96G 24.5K legacy tank/linkfixer/foo22.5K 9.96G 22.5K - I can destroy it ok from the global zone, and I know I could just create a top-level zvol and grant the zone access. Not sure if the 'fix' is : a) prevent attempts to create zvols in non-global zones b) somehow allow it (?) or c) Don't do That I vote for a) myself - should I raise an RFE? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zoned datasets in zfs list
That's a bit nicer, thanks. Still not that clear which zone they belong to though - would it be an idea to add a 'zone' property be a string == zonename ? On 06/09/06, Kenneth Mikelinich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: zfs mount should show where all your datasets are mounted. I too was confused with the zfs list readout. On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 07:37, Dick Davies wrote: > Just did my first dataset delegation, so be gentle :) > > Was initially terrified to see that changes to the mountpoint in the non-global > zone were visible in the global zone. > > Then I realised it wasn't actually mounted (except in the delegated zone). > But I couldn't see any obvious indication that the dataset was delegated to > another zone in zfs list. > Eventually I found the 'zoned' property. Couple of thoughts: > > 1) would it be worth changing 'zfs list' to clarify where a dataset >is actually mounted? > 2) Is there any way to indicate _what_ zone a dataset is mounted in > (other than greppping the zones configuration)? > > -- > Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns > http://number9.hellooperator.net/ > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Re: datasets,zones and mounts
On 06/09/06, Kenneth Mikelinich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Are you suggesting that I not get too granular with datasets and use a higher level one versus several? I tihnk what he's saying is you should only have to delegate one dataset (telecom/oracle/production, for example), and all the 'child' datasets can be created/administered/snapshotted etc. in the non -global zone itself. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zoned datasets in zfs list
Just did my first dataset delegation, so be gentle :) Was initially terrified to see that changes to the mountpoint in the non-global zone were visible in the global zone. Then I realised it wasn't actually mounted (except in the delegated zone). But I couldn't see any obvious indication that the dataset was delegated to another zone in zfs list. Eventually I found the 'zoned' property. Couple of thoughts: 1) would it be worth changing 'zfs list' to clarify where a dataset is actually mounted? 2) Is there any way to indicate _what_ zone a dataset is mounted in (other than greppping the zones configuration)? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes. The architectural benefits of 'zfs send' over rsync only apply to sending incremental changes. When sending a full backup, both schemes have to traverse all the metadata and send all the data, so the *should* be about the same speed. Cool! I'll retry it then. However, as I mentioned, there's still some low-hanging performance issues with 'zfs send', although I'm surprised that it was 5x slower than rsync! I'd like to look into that issue some more... What type of files were you sending? Eg. approximately what size files, how many files, how many files/directory? It was a copy of /usr/ports from freebsd, so around 500mb of small textfiles. Bear in mind I'm talking from memory, and it was just a quick test. I'll retry and let you know if I see a similar problem - if you don't hear anything, I couldn't replicate it. Thanks! -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + rsync, backup on steroids.
On 30/08/06, Matthew Ahrens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 'zfs send' is *incredibly* faster than rsync. That's interesting. We had considered it as a replacement for a certain task (publishing a master docroot to multiple webservers) but a quick test with ~500Mb of data showed the zfs send/recv to be about 5x slower than rsync for the initial copy. You're saying subsequent copies (zfs send -i?) should be faster? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Porting ZFS file system to FreeBSD.
This is fantastic work! How long have you been at it? You seem a lot further on than the ZFS-Fuse project. On 22/08/06, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi. I started porting the ZFS file system to the FreeBSD operating system. There is a lot to do, but I'm making good progress, I think. I'm doing my work in those directories: contrib/opensolaris/ - userland files taken directly from OpenSolaris (libzfs, zpool, zfs and others) sys/contrib/opensolaris/ - kernel files taken directly from OpenSolaris (zfs, taskq, callb and others) compat/opensolaris/ - compatibility userland layer, so I can reduce diffs against vendor files sys/compat/opensolaris/ - compatibility kernel layer, so I can reduce diffs against vendor files (kmem based on malloc(9) and uma(9), mutexes based on our sx(9) locks, condvars based on sx(9) locks and more) cddl/ - FreeBSD specific makefiles for userland bits sys/modules/zfs/ - FreeBSD specific makefile for the kernel module You can find all those on FreeBSD perforce server: http://perforce.freebsd.org/depotTreeBrowser.cgi?FSPC=//depot/user/pjd/zfs&HIDEDEL=NO Ok, so where am I? I ported the userland bits (libzfs, zfs and zpool). I had ztest and libzpool compiling and working as well, but I left them behind for now to focus on kernel bits. I'm building in all (except 2) files into zfs.ko (kernel module). I created new VDEV - vdev_geom, which fits to FreeBSD's GEOM infrastructure, so basically you can use any GEOM provider to build your ZFS pool. VDEV_GEOM is implemented as consumers-only GEOM class. I reimplemented ZVOL to also export storage as GEOM provider. This time it is providers-only GEOM class. This way one can create for example RAID-Z on top of GELI encrypted disks or encrypt ZFS volume. The order is free. Basically you can put UFS on ZFS volumes already and it behaves really stable even under heavy load. Currently I'm working on file system bits (ZPL), which is the most hard part of the entire ZFS port, because it talks to one of the most complex part of the FreeBSD kernel - VFS. I can already mount ZFS-created file systems (with 'zfs create' command), create files/directories, change permissions/owner/etc., list directories content, and perform few other minor operation. Some "screenshots": lcf:root:~# uname -a FreeBSD lcf 7.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #74: Tue Aug 22 03:04:01 UTC 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/zoo/pjd/lcf/sys/LCF i386 lcf:root:~# zpool create tank raidz /dev/ad4a /dev/ad6a /dev/ad5a lcf:root:~# zpool list NAMESIZEUSED AVAILCAP HEALTH ALTROOT tank 35,8G 11,7M 35,7G 0% ONLINE - lcf:root:~# zpool status pool: tank state: ONLINE scrub: none requested config: NAMESTATE READ WRITE CKSUM tankONLINE 0 0 0 raidz1ONLINE 0 0 0 ad4aONLINE 0 0 0 ad6aONLINE 0 0 0 ad5aONLINE 0 0 0 errors: No known data errors lcf:root:# zfs create -V 10g tank/vol lcf:root:# newfs /dev/zvol/tank/vol lcf:root:# mount /dev/zvol/tank/vol /mnt/test lcf:root:# zfs create tank/fs lcf:root:~# mount -t zfs,ufs tank on /tank (zfs, local) tank/fs on /tank/fs (zfs, local) /dev/zvol/tank/vol on /mnt/test (ufs, local) lcf:root:~# df -ht zfs,ufs FilesystemSizeUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on tank 13G 34K 13G 0%/tank tank/fs13G 33K 13G 0%/tank/fs /dev/zvol/tank/vol9.7G4.0K8.9G 0%/mnt/test lcf:root:~# mkdir /tank/fs/foo lcf:root:~# touch /tank/fs/foo/bar lcf:root:~# chown root:operator /tank/fs/foo /tank/fs/foo/bar lcf:root:~# chmod 500 /tank/fs/foo lcf:root:~# ls -ld /tank/fs/foo /tank/fs/foo/bar dr-x-- 2 root operator 3 22 sie 05:41 /tank/fs/foo -rw-r--r-- 1 root operator 0 22 sie 05:42 /tank/fs/foo/bar The most important missing pieces: - Most of the ZPL layer. - Autoconfiguration. I need implement vdev discovery based on GEOM's taste mechanism. - .zfs/ control directory (entirely commented out for now). And many more, but hey, this is after 10 days of work. PS. Please contact me privately if your company would like to donate to the ZFS effort. Even without sponsorship the work will be finished, but your contributions will allow me to spend more time working on ZFS. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://w
Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: SCSI synchronize cache cmd
On 22/08/06, Bill Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:40:40PM -0700, Anton B. Rang wrote: > Yes, ZFS uses this command very frequently. However, it only does this > if the whole disk is under the control of ZFS, I believe; so a > workaround could be to use slices rather than whole disks when > creating a ZFS pool on a buggy device. Actually, we issue the command no matter if we are using a whole disk or just a slice. Short of an mdb script, there is not a way to disable it. We are trying to figure out ways to allow users to specify workarounds for broken hardware without getting the ZFS code all messy as a result. Has that behaviour changed then? I was definitely told (on list) that write cache was only enabled for a 'full ZFS disk'. Am I wrong in thinking this could be risky for UFS slices on the same disk (or does UFS journalling mitigate that)? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Boot Disk
On 18/08/06, Lori Alt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, zfs boot will be supported on both x86 and sparc. Sparc's OBP, and various x86 BIOS's both have restrictions on the devices that can be accessed at boot time, so we need to limit the devices in a root pool on both architectures. Gotcha. I wasn't sure if you were proposing requiring a custom BIOS on x86, but I take it (from your next point) you're just chainloading a ZFS-aware grub > Or is x86 zfs root going to need a grub /boot partition on one > of the disks? On x86, each disk capable of booting the system (which means each disk in a root pool) will have grub installed on it in a disk slice which occupies the first few blocks of the disk. It's not the same as the old /boot partition, because all the slice contains is grub. It doesn't contain a file system. I think that was really what I was getting at. So long as one of the disks is still alive, and the BIOS can boot of it, then you'd be alright? That sounds perfect - the implementation is really not that important to me, so long as there's no single point of failure. Thanks for your time, and have a good weekend. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Boot Disk
On 17/08/06, Lori Alt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dick Davies wrote: > That's excellent news Lori, thanks to everyone who's working > on this. Are you planning to use a single pool, > or an 'os pool/application pool' split? Thus I think of the most important split as the "os pool/data pool" split. Maybe that's what you meant. That's it, yes :) I should probably have said service rather than application. .. limitations in the boot PROMs cause us to place restrictions on the devices you can place in a root pool. (root mirroring WILL be supported, however). Does boot prom support mean this will be SPARC only? That's interesting (last time I tried Tabriz' hack, it was x86 only). Or is x86 zfs root going to need a grub /boot partition on one of the disks? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Boot Disk
On 16/08/06, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Dick Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As an aside, is there a general method to generate bootable > opensolaris DVDs? The only way I know of getting opensolaris on > is installing sxcr and then BFUing on top. A year ago, I did publish a toolkit to create bootable SchilliX CDs/DVDs. Would this help? Definitely - but I'm just curious to be honest. I just wanted to burn the appropriate thing onto the 'i boot opensolaris' blank dvds I got sent the other day :) -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Boot Disk
On 15/08/06, Lori Alt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Brian Hechinger wrote: > On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:26:24PM -0600, Lori Alt wrote: > >>>What about Express? >> >>Probably not any time soon. If it makes U4, >>I think that would make it available in Express late >>this year. > > > Is there a specific Nevada build you are going to target? I'd love to > start testing this as soon as possible. I have both SPARC and x86 here > to play with. You need more than a Nevada build. You also need the installation code. We're working on an OpenSolaris community web page for zfs-boot. On that web page will be links to files that can be downloaded for putting together a netinstall image or a DVD for installing a system with a zfs root file system. We hope to have that available in the next few weeks. That's excellent news Lori, thanks to everyone who's working on this. Are you planning to use a single pool, or an 'os pool/application pool' split? As an aside, is there a general method to generate bootable opensolaris DVDs? The only way I know of getting opensolaris on is installing sxcr and then BFUing on top. -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] How to monitor ZFS ?
On 15/07/06, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: eric kustarz wrote: > martin wrote: > To monitor activity, use 'zpool iostat 1' to monitor just zfs > datasets, or iostat(1M) to include non-zfs devices. Perhaps Martin was asking for something a little more robust. Something like SNMP traps, alert messages out via email, etc. Doesn't ZFS report via the usual SMF / fmd mechanisms? -- Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns http://number9.hellooperator.net/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
