Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Nikola M. minik...@gmail.com wrote: I think site: Phoronix.com already did comparisons with ZFS under several platforms and other (Linux) file systems without sweat. with single disk configuration no less (er, more) ;) You may want to check this instead: http://www.zfsbuild.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Upgrade a degraded pool
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Oskar oskars.ga...@gmail.com wrote: I know that this is not necessarily the right forum, but the FreeBSD forum haven't been able to help me... I recently updated my FreeBSD 8.0 RC3 to 8.1 and after the update I can't import my zpool. My computer says that no such pool exists, even though it can be seen with the zpool status command. I assume that it's due to different zfs versions. That should be solved by a zpool upgrade, BUT the problem is that I also have a failed disk. What happens to my data if I upgrade a degraded pool? Furthermore a disk label was lost and zfs tried to replace the disk, with a disk which won't be available once I get the disk re-labeled. I have no clues about what to do... :s providing these may (or may not) help in giving better assistance: - output of atacontrol list and camcontrol devlist - output of gpart show - output of glabel status - output of zpool status - output of zpool list - output of zpool import - output of zfs list - output of mount -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best way to check zfs/zpool version programatically
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 3:18 AM, sridhar surampudi toyours_srid...@yahoo.co.in wrote: Hi, what is the right way to check versions of zfs and zpool ?? I am writing piece of code which call zfs command line further. Before actually initiating and going ahead I wan to check the kind of version zfs and zpool present on the system. As an example zpool split is not present on prior to 134 build (not sure exactly) so if an application using my code should fail if zpool split is called. Is there any zfs version or zpool version command present in recent updates? or is there any other way ( reading some file ) I can get these details? zfs upgrade zpool upgrade ? -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Howto reclaim space under legacy mountpoint?
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Gary Gendel g...@genashor.com wrote: I moved my home directories to a new disk and then mounted the disk using a legacy mount point over /export/home. Here is the output of the zfs list: NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT rpool 55.8G 11.1G 83K /rpool rpool/ROOT 21.1G 11.1G 19K legacy rpool/ROOT/snv-134 21.1G 11.1G 14.3G / rpool/dump 1.97G 11.1G 1.97G - rpool/export 30.8G 11.1G 23K /export rpool/export/home 30.8G 11.1G 29.3G legacy rpool/swap 1.97G 12.9G 144M - users 32.8G 881G 31.1G /export/home The question is how to remove the files from the orginal rpool/export/home (non mount point) rpool? I a bit nervous to do a: set mountpoint to somewhere and decide for yourself. -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] resilver that never finishes
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Tom Bird t...@marmot.org.uk wrote: All said and done though, we will have to live with snv_134's bugs from now on, or perhaps I could try Sol 10. or OpenIllumos. Or Nexenta. Or FreeBSD. Or insert osol distro name. -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 4k block alignment question (X-25E)
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote: In any case -- any thoughts on whether or not I'll be helping anything if I change my slog slice starting cylinder to be 4k aligned even though slice 0 isn't? some people claims that due to how zfs works, there will be performance hit as long the reported sector size is different with the physical size. This thread[1] has the discussion on what happened and how to handle such drives on freebsd. [1] http://marc.info/?l=freebsd-fsm=126976001214266w=2 -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs lists discrepancy after added a new vdev to pool
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Darin Perusich darin.perus...@cognigencorp.com wrote: Hello All, I'm sure this has been discussed previously but I haven't been able to find an answer to this. I've added another raidz1 vdev to an existing storage pool and the increased available storage isn't reflected in the 'zfs list' output. Why is this? you must do zpool export followed by zpool import -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS SCRUB
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Mohammed Sadiq sadiq1...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Is it recommended to do scrub while the filesystem is mounted . yes How frequently do we have to do scrub and at what circumstances. some people say weekly, some other monthly, some other, like myself, whenever remember to. Usually done when the load is at its lightest. -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Encryption?
On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Michael Johnson mjjohnson@yahoo.com wrote: I'm planning on running FreeBSD in VirtualBox (with a Linux host) and giving it raw disk access to four drives, which I plan to configure as a raidz2 volume. On top of that, I'm considering using encryption. I understand that ZFS doesn't yet natively support encryption, so my idea was to set each drive up with full-disk encryption in the Linux host (e.g., using TrueCrypt or dmcrypt), mount the encrypted drives, and then give the virtual machine access to the virtual unencrypted drives. So the encryption would be transparent to FreeBSD. However, I don't know enough about ZFS to know if this is a good idea. I know that I need to specifically configure VirtualBox to respect cache flushes, so that data really is on disk when ZFS expects it to be. Would putting ZFS on top of full-disk encryption like this cause any problems? E.g., if the (encrypted) physical disk has a problem and as a result a larger chunk of the unencrypted data is corrupted, would ZFS handle that well? Are there any other possible consequences of this idea that I should know about? (I'm not too worried about any hits in performance; I won't be reading or writing heavily, nor in time-sensitive applications.) I should add that since this is a desktop I'm not nearly as worried about encryption as if it were a laptop (theft or loss are less likely), but encryption would still be nice. However, data integrity is the most important thing (I'm storing backups of my personal files on this), so if there's a chance that ZFS wouldn't handle errors well when on top of encryption, I'll just go without it. Thanks, Michael you can also create zfs on top of GELI[1][2] devices. Create the encrypted disks first and then use that to create zpool. Exact steps (assuming single disk, da1): - create the key # dd if=/dev/random of=/root/da1.key bs=64 count=1 - initialize GELI disk, if you want to only use the key as authentication method or automatically attach on boot, check the reference links for initialization and configuration (-K and -b) # geli init -s 4096 -K da1.key /dev/da1 - attach GELI disk # geli attach -k da1.key /dev/da1 - create zpool, either directly on geli disk or by creating it on top of GPT direct: # zpool create securepool da1.eli on top of GPT: # gpart create -s gpt da1.eli # gpart add -t freebsd-zfs da1.eli # zpool create securepool da1.elip1 - adjust rc.conf and loader.conf accordingly Another tutorial: http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=2775 [1] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disks-encrypting.html [2] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=geliapropos=0sektion=0manpath=FreeBSD+8.0-RELEASEformat=html -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Migrating to ZFS
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:59 PM, zfsnoob4 zfsnoob...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: It's not easy to make Solaris slices on the boot drive. As I am just realizing. The installer does not have any kind of partition software. I have a linux boot disc and I am contemplating using gparted to resize the win partition to create a raw 50GB empty partition. Can the installer format a raw partition into a Solaris FS? If it can it will be easy (assuming it can set up the dual boot properly). This is what I'm thinking: 1) Use Gparted to resize the windows partition and therefore create a 50GB raw partition. 2) Use the opensolaris installer to format the raw partition into a Solaris FS. 3) Install opensolaris 2009.06, the setup should automatically configure the dual boot with windows and opensolaris. Does that make sense? that's exactly what I usually do -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can RAIDZ disks be slices ?
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Ian Collins i...@ianshome.com wrote: And lose my existing data on those 2 500GB disks? Copy it back form the temporary pool, you are replacing your existing pool, aren't you? So you'll loose the data on it regardless. Please, at least read the post before replying:( I did. a little bit easier to read: current condition: - 2x500gb disks striped, contains data - empty 750gb dan 1tb target: - 3x500gb raidz with third disk from 1tb/750gb originally proposed method: - create 3x500gb raidz using 500gb from 750gb and 500gb x2 from 1tb slices - move data from striped source to new raidz pool - destroy striped pool - replace one 500gb slice at 1tb disk to 500gb disk previously striped - optionally replace 500gb at 750gb (or 1tb) disk to another 500gb disk previously striped suggested method by Ian: - create 1tb pool using 1tb disk - move data from striped source to new raidz pool - destroy striped pool - create 3x500gb raidz pool using 2x500gb disks and 750gb disk - move data back to new raidz pool Using the former method will be slower because of using two components in one disk, increasing write load. -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can RAIDZ disks be slices ?
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Sunil funt...@yahoo.com wrote: ouch! My apologies! I did not understand what you were trying to say. I was gearing towards: 1. Using the newer 1TB in the eventual RAIDZ. Newer hardware typically means (slightly) faster access times and sequential throughput. 2. Getting the RAIDZ serviceable quick. Your method will cause two full copy operations. Data will likely be copied to the same extent with my method but it will become and remain available (almost) all the time (minus 1TB failing on me during the transition). -- probably you can take the second slice on 1tb offline after creating raidz pool to increase speed. -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Q : recommendations for zpool configuration
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:34 PM, taemun tae...@gmail.com wrote: A pool with a 4-wide raidz2 is a completely nonsensical idea. It has the same amount of accessible storage as two striped mirrors. And would be slower in terms of IOPS, and be harder to upgrade in the future (you'd need to keep adding four drives for every expansion with raidz2 - with mirrors you only need to add another two drives to the pool). Just my $0.02 but it can survive on failure of 2 random disks in the pool. In striped mirror: mirror1 diskA diskB mirror2 diskC diskD In event diskA and diskB (or diskC and diskD) failed together, entire pool is lost. In raidz2: raidz2-1 diskA diskB diskC diskD Any combination of 2 disks can fail at same time and the pool will still intact. -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Posible newbie question about space between zpool and zfs file systems
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com wrote: IMHO, what matters is that pretty much everything from the disk controller to the CPU and network interface is advertised in power-of-2 terms and disks sit alone using power-of-10. And students are taught that computers work with bits and so everything is a power of 2. Apparently someone wrote false information on Wikipedia [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_rate_units#Examples -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Posible newbie question about space between zpool and zfs file systems
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@sun.com wrote: Up until 5 years ago (or so), GigaByte meant a power of 2 to EVERYONE, not just us techies. I would hardly call 40+ years of using the various giga/mega/kilo prefixes as a power of 2 in computer science as non-authoritative. In fact, I would argue that the HD manufacturers don't have a leg to stand on - it's not like they were outside the field and used to the standard SI notation of powers of 10. Nope. They're inside the industry, used the powers-of-2 for decades, then suddenly decided to modify that meaning, as it served their marketing purposes. it's probably just me, but I always raged when calculating anything using imperial units, * binary bytes and time. -- O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
