Re: [zfs-discuss] Motherboard for home zfs/solaris file server
hopefully the lead itself won't be radioactive) Or the chips themselves don't have some alpha particle generation. It has happened and from premium vendors There is no replacement for good system design :) khb...@gmail.com Sent from my iPod ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs on 32 bit?
I had a 32 bit zfs server up for months with no such issue Performance is not great but it's no buggier than anything else. War stories from the initial zfs drops notwithstanding khb...@gmail.com | keith.bier...@quantum.com Sent from my iPod On Jun 15, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Orvar Korvar no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: Ive asked the same question about 32bit. I created a thread and asked. It were something like does 32bit ZFS fragments RAM? or something similar. As I remember it, 32 bit had some issues. Mostly due to RAM fragmentation or something similar. The result was that you had to restart your server after a while. But I shuts down my desktopPC every night so I never had any issues. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Observation of Device Layout vs Performance
On Jan 6, 2009, at 9:44 AM 1/6/, Jacob Ritorto wrote: but catting /dev/zero to a file in the pool now f Do you get the same sort of results from /dev/random? I wouldn't be surprised if /dev/zero turns out to be a special case. Indeed, using any of the special files is probably not ideal. -- Keith H. Bierman khb...@gmail.com | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Observation of Device Layout vs Performance
On Jan 6, 2009, at 11:12 AM 1/6/, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Keith Bierman wrote: Do you get the same sort of results from /dev/random? /dev/random is very slow and should not be used for benchmarking. Not directly, no. But copying from /dev/random to a real file and using that should provide better insight than all zeros or all ones (I have seen clever devices optimize things away). Tests like bonnie are probably a better bet than rolling one's own; although the latter is good for building intuition ; -- Keith H. Bierman khb...@gmail.com | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] VERY URGENT Compliance for ZFS
On Nov 10, 2008, at 4:47 AM, Vikash Gupta wrote: Hi Parmesh, Looks like this tender specification meant for Veritas. How do you handle this particular clause ? Shall provide Centralized, Cross platform, Single console management GUI Does it really make sense to have a discussion like this on an external open list? Contracts are customarily private, and company confidential. -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Solved - a big THANKS to Victor Latushkin @ Sun / Moscow
On Oct 10, 2008, at 7:55 PM 10/10/, David Magda wrote: If someone finds themselves in this position, what advice can be followed to minimize risks? Can you ask for two LUNs on different physical SAN devices and have an expectation of getting it? -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] An slog experiment (my NAS can beat up your NAS)
On Oct 8, 2008, at 4:27 PM 10/8/, Jim Dunham wrote: , a single Solaris node can not be both the primary and secondary node. If one wants this type of mirror functionality on a single node, use host based or controller based mirroring software. If one is running multiple zones, couldn't you fool AVS into thinking that one zone was the primary and the other the secondary? -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel M-series SSD
On Sep 10, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Write performance to SSDs is not all it is cracked up to be. Buried in the AnandTech writeup, there is mention that while 4K can be written at once, 512KB needs to be erased at once. This means that write performance to an empty device will seem initially pretty good, but then it will start to suffer as 512KB regions need to be erased to make space for more writes. That assumes that one doesn't code up the system to batch up erases prior to writes. ... returns to the user faster. This may increase the chance of data loss due to power failure. Presumably anyone deft enough to design such an enterprise grade device will be able to provide enough super-capacitor (or equivalent) to ensure that DRAM is flushed to SSD before anything bad happens. Clever use of such devices in L2ARC and slog ZFS configurations (or moral equivalents in other environments) is pretty much the only affordable way (vs. huge numbers of spindles) to bridge the gap between rotating rust and massively parallel CPUs. One imagines that Intel will go back to fabbing their own at some point; that is closer to their usual business model than OEMing other people's parts ; -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Intel M-series SSD
On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Keith Bierman wrote: written at once, 512KB needs to be erased at once. This means that write performance to an empty device will seem initially pretty good, but then it will start to suffer as 512KB regions need to be erased to make space for more writes. That assumes that one doesn't code up the system to batch up erases prior to writes. Is the notion of block erase even exposed via SATA/SCSI protocols? Maybe it is for CD/DVD type devices. This is something that only the device itself would be aware of. Only the device knows if the block has been used before. A conspiracy between the device and a savvy host is sure to emerge ; ... That is reasonable. It adds to product cost and size though. Super- capacitors are not super-small. True, but for enterprise class devices they are sufficiently small. Laptops will have a largish battery and won't need the caps ; Desktops will be on their own. -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] eWeek: corrupt file brought down FAA's antiquated IT system
On Aug 28, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: The old FORTRAN code either had to be ported or new code written from scratch. Assuming it WAS written in FORTRAN there is no reason to believe it wouldn't just compile with a modern Fortran compiler. I've often run codes originally written in the sixties without any significant changes (very old codes may have used the frequency statement, toggled front panel lights or sensed toggle switches ... but that's pretty rare). -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] pulling disks was: ZFS hangs/freezes after disk failure,
On Aug 27, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Richard Elling wrote: In my pile of broken parts, I have devices which fail to indicate an unrecoverable read, yet do indeed suffer from forgetful media. A long time ago, in a hw company long since dead and buried, I spent some months trying to find an intermittent error in the last bits of a complicated floating point application. It only occurred when disk striping was turned on (but the OS and device codes checked cleanly). In the end, it turned out that one of the device vendors had modified the specification slightly (by like 1 nano-sec) and the result was that least significant bits were often wrong when we drove the disk cage to it's max. Errors were occurring randomly (e.g. swapping, paging, etc.) but no other application noticed. As the error was within the margin of error a less stubborn analyst might have not made a serious of federal cases about the non-determinism ; My point is that undetected errors happen all the time; that people don't notice doesn't mean that they don't happen ... -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS deduplication
On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Darren J Moffat wrote: than a private copy. I wouldn't expect that to have too big an impact (I On a SPARC CMT (Niagara 1+) based system wouldn't that be likely to have a large impact? -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS deduplication
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Keith Bierman wrote: On a SPARC CMT (Niagara 1+) based system wouldn't that be likely to have a large impact? UltraSPARC T1 has no hardware SHA256 so I wouldn't expect any real change from running the private software sha256 copy in ZFS versus the software sha256 in the crypto framework. The Sorry for the typo (or thinko; I did know that but it's possible that it slipped my mind in the moment). Admittedly most community members probably don't have an N2 to play with, but it might well be available in the DC. -- Keith Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] kbiermank AIM ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] confusion and frustration with zpool
On Jul 9, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Miles Nordin wrote: ah == Al Hopper [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ah I've had bad experiences with the Seagate products. I've had bad experiences with all of them. (maxtor, hgst, seagate, wd) ah My guess is that it's related to duty cycle - Recently I've been getting a lot of drives from companies like newegg and zipzoomfly that fail within the first month. The rate is high enough that I would not trust a two-way mirror with 1mo old drives. While I've always had good luck with zipzoomfly, infant mortality is a well known feature of many devices. Your advice to do some burn in testing of drives before putting them into full production is probably a very sound one for sites large enough to maintain a bit of inventory ; -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS deduplication
On Jul 8, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Richard Elling wrote: much fun for people who want to hide costs. For example, some bright manager decided that they should charge $100/month/port for ethernet drops. So now, instead of having a centralized, managed network with well defined port mappings, every cube has an el-cheapo ethernet switch. Saving money? Not really, but this can be hidden by the accounting. Indeed, it actively hurts performance (mixing sunray, mobile, and fixed units on the same subnets rather than segregation by type). -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [caiman-discuss] swap dump on ZFS volume
On Jul 1, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Miles Nordin wrote: I don't think it's overrated at all. People all around me are using this dynamic_pager right now, and they just reboot when they see too many pinwheels. If they are ``quite happy,'' it's not with their pager. I often exist in a sea of mac users, and I've never seen them reboot other than after the periodic Apple Updates. Killing firefox every couple of days, or after visiting certain demented sites is not uncommon and is probably a good idea. They see demand as capacity rather than temperature but...the machine does need to run out of memory eventually. Don't drink the dynamic_pager futuristic kool-aid. It's broken, both in theory and in the day-to-day experience of the Mac users around me. I've got macs with uptimes of months ... admittedly not in the same territory as my old SunOS or Solaris boxes, but Apple has seldom resisted the temptation to drop a security update or a quicktime update for longer. -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Oracle and ZFS
On Jun 23, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Miles Nordin wrote: unplanned power outage that happens after fsync returns Aye, but isn't that the real rub ... when the power fails after the write but *before* the fsync has occurred... -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Filesystem for each home dir - 10,000 users?
On Jun 12, 2008, at 12:46 PM, Chris Siebenmann wrote: Or to put it another way: disk space is a permanent commitment, servers are not. In the olden times (e.g. 1980s) on various CDC and Univac timesharing services, I recall there being two kinds of storage ... dayfiles and permanent files. The former could (and as a matter of policy did) be removed at the end of the day. It was typically cheaper to move the fraction of one's dayfile output to tape, and have it rolled back in the next day ... but that was an optimization (or pessimization if the true costs were calculated). I could easily imagine providing two tiers of storage for a university environment ... one which wasn't backed up, and doesn't come with any serious promises ... which could be pretty inexpensive and the second tier which has the kind of commitments you suggest are required. Tier 2 should be better than storing things in /tmp, but could approach consumer pricing ... and still be good enough for a lot of uses. -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Can't rm file when No space left on device...
On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:58 PM 6/5/, Brad Diggs wrote: Hi Keith, Sure you can truncate some files but that effectively corrupts the files in our case and would cause more harm than good. The only files in our volume are data files. So an rm is ok, but a truncation is not? Seems odd to me, but if that's your constraint so be it. -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Hardware Check, OS X Compatibility, NEWBIE!!
On Jun 4, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote: On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 11:52 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote: but we got one server in where 4 of the 8 drives failed in the first two months, at which point we called Seagate and they were happy to swap out all 8 drives for us. I suspect a bad lot, and even found some other complaints about the lot on Google. Problems like that seem to pop up with disturbing regularity, and have done so for decades. (Anyone else remember the DEC RA81 glue problem in around 1985-1986?) I've thought for some time that a good way to defend against the bad lot problem (if you can manage it) is to buy half of your disks from each of two manufacturers and then set up mirror pairs containing one disk of each model... I think it's a bit more common to arrange to have same vendor parts, but different lots. There are still lots of potential correlations, shared chassis, shared power, etc. mean shared vibration, shared environment, and shared human error sources ; -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
On Jun 2, 2008, at 3:24 AM 6/2/, Erik Trimble wrote: Keith Bierman wrote: On May 30, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: The only drawback of the older Socket 940 Opterons is that they don't support the hardware VT extensions, so running a Windows guest under xVM on them isn't currently possible. That is correct. VirtualBox does _not_ require the VT extensions. I was referring to xVM, which I'm still taking as synonymous with the Xen-based system. xVM _does_ require the VT hardware extensions to run guest OSes in an unmodified form, which currently includes all flavors of Windows. Ah, Marketing rebranding befuddles again. It's Sun xVM VirtualBox (tm) as best I can tell from sun.com. So I assumed you were using the xVM in generic sense, not as Xen vs. Virtual Box. -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
On May 30, 2008, at 6:59 PM, Erik Trimble wrote: The only drawback of the older Socket 940 Opterons is that they don't support the hardware VT extensions, so running a Windows guest under xVM on them isn't currently possible. From the VirtualBox manual, page 11 • No hardware virtualization required. VirtualBox does not require processor features built into newer hardware like VT-x (on Intel processors) or AMD-V (on AMD processors). As opposed to many other virtualization solutions, you can therefore use VirtualBox even on older hardware where these features are not present. In fact, VirtualBox’s sophisticated software techniques are typically faster than hardware virtualization, although it is still possible to enable hard- ware virtualization on a per-VM basis. Only for some exotic guest operating systems like OS/2, hardware virtualization is required. I've been running windows under OpenSolaris on an aged 32-bit Dell. I'm morally certain it lacks the hardware support, and in any event, the VBOX configuration is set to avoid using the VT extensions anyway. Runs fine. Not the fastest box on the planet ... but it's got limited DRAM. -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS sharing options for Windows
On May 30, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Craig Smith wrote: The tough thing is trying to make this fit well in a Windows world. If you hang all the disks off the OpenSolaris system directly, and export via CIFS ... isn't it just a NAS box from the windows perspective? If so, how is it any harder to explain/fit than a NetApp box (or any other commercial NAS solution)? -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS sharing options for Windows
On May 30, 2008, at 6:49 AM 5/30/, Craig J Smith wrote: It also should be noted that I am having to run on Solaris and not Opensolaris due to adaptec am79c973 scsi driver issues in Opensolaris. Well that is probably a showstopper then, since the in-kernel support isn't in the production Solaris leg yet. -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Project Hardware
On May 28, 2008, at 10:27 AM 5/28/, Richard Elling wrote: Since the mechanics are the same, the difference is in the electronics In my very distant past, I did QA work for an electronic component manufacturer. Even parts which were identical were expected to behave quite differently ... based on population statistics. That is, the HighRel MilSpec parts were from batches with no failures (even under very harsh conditions beyond the normal operating mode, and all tests to destruction showed only the expected failure modes) and the hobbyist grade components were those whose cohort *failed* all the testing (and destructive testing could highlight abnormal failure modes). I don't know that drive builders do the same thing, but I'd kinda expect it. -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] The ZFS inventor and Linus sitting in a tree?
On May 20, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ,,, It may be that you confuse the term work in trying to extend it in a wrong way. ...many wise words elided... Not being a lawyer, and this not being a Legal forum ... can we leave license analysis alone? -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS pool/filesystem layout design considerations
On May 14, 2008, at 10:06 AM, Todd E. Moore wrote: I'm working with a group who is designing an application that distributes redundant copies of their data across multiple server nodes; something akin to RAIS (redundant array of independent servers). That part sounds good. Within the individual server, they have an application that stores the particular data into a file on a filesystem based on a hash or some other means by which to distribute the data across the various filesystems. That sounds potentially good, if the underlying filesystems aren't reliable. In their early testing, they found performance gains of ZFS compared to other filesystems. As they begin to think about the production implementation they are considering the following design using external JBOD arrays - each drive is a separate zpool with a single filesystem That seems like a very bad idea to me. If a system has multiple drives, using RAIDZ or some equivalent would be much sounder than relying on each drive to remain sane. Of course, their multiple copies can save them ... unless there's some correlated event (e.g. power surge) that causes failures in multiple drives and even multiple systems. ... I have my concerns regarding this design, but I do not have the in- depth knowledge of ZFS to make the case for or against this design approach. I need help to identify the pros/cons so I can continue the design discussion? As you are at Sun, it would seem to me you should tap into the RAS expertise and tools available internally to evaluate the probabilistic failure modes in the light of field experience with various components. I'd expect that multiple systems, each of which has RAIDZ ZFS pools (leveraging multiple disks per spool) should have much higher RAS figures than the proposed alternative. -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 24-port SATA controller options?
On Apr 15, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Tim wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Maurice Volaski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have 16 disks in RAID 5 and I'm not worried. I'm sure you're already aware, but if not, 22 drives in a raid-6 is absolutely SUICIDE when using SATA disks. 12 disks is the upper end of what you want even with raid-6. The odds of you losing data in a 22 disk raid-6 is far too great to be worth it if you care about your data. /rant You could also be driving your car down the freeway at 100mph drunk, high, and without a seatbelt on and not be worried. The odds will still be horribly against you. Perhaps providing the computations rather than the conclusions would be more persuasive on a technical list ; -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 24-port SATA controller options?
On Apr 15, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Keith Bierman wrote: Perhaps providing the computations rather than the conclusions would be more persuasive on a technical list ; No doubt. The computations depend considerably on the size of the disk drives involved. The odds of experiencing media failure on a single 1TB SATA disk are quite high. Consider that this media failure may occur while attempting to recover from a failed disk. There have been some good articles on this in USENIX Login magazine. ZFS raidz1 and raidz2 are NOT directly equivalent to RAID5 and RAID6 so the failure statistics would be different. Regardless, single disk failure in a raidz1 substantially increases the risk that something won't be recoverable if there is a media failure while rebuilding. Since ZFS duplicates its own metadata blocks, it is most likely that some user data would be lost but the pool would otherwise recover. If a second disk drive completely fails, then you are toast with raidz1. RAID5 and RAID6 rebuild the entire disk while raidz1 and raidz2 only rebuild existing data blocks so raidz1 and raidz2 are less likely to experience media failure if the pool is not full. Indeed; but worked illustrative examples are apt to be more helpful than blanket pronouncements ; -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS Administration
On Apr 9, 2008, at 6:54 PM, Wee Yeh Tan wrote: I'm just thinking out loud. What would be the advantage of having periodic snapshot taken within ZFS vs invoking it from an external facility? I suspect that the people requesting this really want a unified management tool (GUI and possibly CLI). Whether the actual implementation were inside of the filesystem code, or implemented via cron or equivalent is probably irrelevant. Their point, I think, is that we've got this nice management free technology ... except for these bits that still have to be done independently, and (to the non-unix experienced somewhat) arcane. If we aspire to achieve the sort of user friendlyness that is the Mac, then there's work to be in this area ; -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Downgrade zpool version?
On Apr 7, 2008, at 1:46 PM, David Loose wrote: my Solaris samba shares never really played well with iTunes. Another approach might be to stick with Solaris on the server, and run netatalk netatalk.sourceforge.net instead of SAMBA (or, you know your macs can speak NFS ;). -- Keith H. Bierman [EMAIL PROTECTED] | AIM kbiermank 5430 Nassau Circle East | Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 | 303-997-2749 speaking for myself* Copyright 2008 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
