[zfs-discuss] one time passwords - apache infrastructure incident report 8/28/2009
Hi, Just be reading about apache.org incident report for 8/28/2009 ( https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/apache_org_downtime_report ) The use of Solaris and ZFS on the European server was interesting including the recovery. However, what I found more interesting was the use of one time passwords which is supported by FreeBSD ( http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/one-time-passwords.html ). Could or should this technology be incorporated into OpenSolaris? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] the antithesis of zfs
Thanks for clearing up the issue -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] the antithesis of zfs
Are tools necessary to ensure that deleted ZFS pools can not be recovered or that deleted filesystems are really deleted? If the current delete commands do offer some level of data recovery, is worth offering a destroy command which deletes and ensures no means of recovery other than a backup? -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] OpenSolaris vs Linux
Hi, A couple of years ago I compared Solaris 10 and XP x64 on the same hardware (dual opteron) running the same analytical cases. Each OS had a clean install before use :- Case CPU time System Time Lapse Bits OS No Secs Secs hh:mm:ss 1 5890 21:38:37 64Solaris 10 2 5578 21:38:31 64Solaris 10 3 1128 10:19:05 64Solaris 10 1 6536 21:49:19 32Solaris 10 2 8388 22:20:12 32Solaris 10 3 1311 10:22:11 32Solaris 10 10 03:16:24.21 32Win XP x64 20 03:17:27.71 32Win XP x64 3222000:37:00 32Win XP x64 The tests were repeated just to make sure. Unfortunately until software is built and tested on Solaris 10, people tend to assume Windows is faster. The above tests were completed with no virus scanner installed as not to distort the results. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS snapshot GUI
Hi, In respect of snapshots :- a) should the snapshot process it self be modified to allow restoring of individual files via zfs rollback b) should there be a zfs rollfile to selectively restore files from a snapshot c) should there be a zfs purge which would allow file(s) to be removed from zfs including all snapshots Ross wrote: > Very good points Rang, I'm going to add to them with a few of my own. > > It should be possible to restore individual files rather than rolling back > the snapshot and I guess that's what was meant here. I think the terminology > in the original post may not be too clear. > > However, my impression reading this is that this is an application that runs > directly on the machine. If so, we're missing an opportunity here. Solaris > isn't really an end user OS, it's more of a server OS. If you are going to > implement a nice GUI for restoring files from a snapshot, you really want > that to work over a network as well as on the local machine. > > Ironically, if you're a windows user you already have that ability over the > network with Solaris. Run ZFS and Samba and windows users can use > Microsoft's Shadow Copy Client to right-click any file and easily restore it > from a snapshot: > http://helpdesk.its.uiowa.edu/windows/instructions/shadowcopy.htm > > What's really needed is a way to do that on Solaris and Linux machines over > the network. Integration with Apple's time machine would be great too > (especially as it sounds like they may be making it compatible with ZFS), but > unless somebody high up in Sun speaks to Apple I don't see that happening. > > So you need two UI's: > > - On the server side a simple UI is needed for creating and scheduling > snapshots of the filesystem. Tim Foster's service would be a good starting > point for that: http://blogs.sun.com/timf/entry/zfs_automatic_for_the_people > > - On the client side a simple UI is needed that allows users to easily see > previous versions of files and folders, and either restore them in place or > copy old versions to a new location. > > And the client side of this would want to be capable of running either > locally or over the network. > > I think you could probably bodge this by virtue of the fact that you can > browse the files in a snapshot. Performance would probably be slow however > and I've no doubt that far better performance could be achieved with hooks > into ZFS (which incidentally would benefit apple if they want to move time > machine to ZFS). > > That kind of thing is way outside my experience however, but it would be good > if somebody at Sun could think about it. > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > __ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > __ > > -- Regards Russell ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS
James C. McPherson wrote: > can you guess? wrote: > ... > >> Ah - thanks to both of you. My own knowledge of video format internals >> is so limited that I assumed most people here would be at least equally >> familiar with the notion that a flipped bit or two in a video would >> hardly qualify as any kind of disaster (or often even as being >> noticeable, unless one were searching for it, in the case of >> commercial-quality video). >> >> David's comment about jpeg corruption would be more worrisome if it were >> clear that any significant number of 'consumers' (the immediate subject >> of my original comment in this area) had anything approaching 1 TB of >> jpegs on their systems (which at an average of 1 MB per jpeg would be >> around a million pictures...). If you include 'image files of various >> sorts', as he did (though this also raises the question of whether we're >> still talking about 'consumers'), then you also have to specify exactly >> how damaging single-bit errors are to those various 'sorts' (one might >> guess not very for the uncompressed formats that might well be taking up >> most of the space). And since the CERN study seems to suggest that the >> vast majority of errors likely to be encountered at this level of >> incidence (and which could be caught by ZFS) are *detectable* errors, >> they'll (in the unlikely event that you encounter them at all) typically >> only result in requiring use of a RAID (or backup) copy (surely one >> wouldn't be entrusting data of any real value to a single disk). >> > > > I have to comment here. As a bloke with a bit of a photography > habit - I have a 10Mpx camera and I shoot in RAW mode - it is > very, very easy to acquire 1Tb of image files in short order. > > Each of the photos I take is between 8 and 11Mb, and if I'm > at a sporting event or I'm travelling for work or pleasure, > it is *incredibly* easy to amass several hundred Mb of photos > every single day. > > I'm by no means a professional photographer (so I'm not out > taking photos every single day), although a very close friend > of mine is. My photo storage is protected by ZFS with mirroring > and backups to dvd media. My profotog friend has 3 copies of > all her data - working set, immediate copy on usb-attached disk, > and second backup also on usb-attached disk but disconnected. > > Even if you've got your original file archived, you still need > your working copies available, and Adobe Photoshop can turn that > RAW file into a PSD of nearly 60Mb in some cases. > > It is very easy for the storage medium to acquire some degree > of corruption - whether it's a CF or SD card, they all use > FAT32. I have been in the position of losing photos due to > this. Not many - perhaps a dozen over the course of 12 months. > > That flipped bit which you seem to be dismissing as "hardly... > a disaster" can in fact make your photo file totally useless, > because not only will you probably not be able to get the file > off the media card, but whatever software you're using to keep > track of your catalog will also be unable to show you the > entire contents. That might be the image itself, or it might > be the equally important EXIF information. > > I don't depend on FAT32-formatted media cards to make my > living, fortunately, but if I did I imagine I'd probably end > up only using each card for about a month before exercising > caution and purchasing a new one rather than depending on the > card itself to be reliable any more. > > 1Tb of photos shot on a 10MPx camera in the camera's native > RAW format is around 100,000 photos. It's not difficult to > imagine a "consumer" having that sort of storage requirement. > Hi, I have been watching the thread, having been using a digital cameras for over 8 years I have noticed that as resolution increases the file size changes accordingly. The quality of the images has improved dramatically which is why newer camera are purchased. As I also have a project to scan all my parents and grandparents old photographs to provide a record for my children my disk usage has increased dramatically. Given that I purchased a digital video camera this has further added for the need of disk space. Previously I had two 73GB disks, now I have 750GB (4 x 250GB RAID5). The problem of archival is either to copy to another computer which I currently do, or hope that HVD becomes a cheap archival method. > > > James C. McPherson > -- > Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris > Sun Microsystems > http://blogs.sun.com/jmcp http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > __ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > __
[zfs-discuss] zfs receive
Hi, As part of a disk subsystem upgrade I am thinking of using ZFS but there are two issues at present 1) The current filesystems are mounted as /hostname/mountpoint except for one directory where the mount point is /. Is is possible to mount a ZFS filesystem as /hostname// so that /hostname/ contains only directory . Storage dir is empty apart from the directory which contains all the file? 2) Is there any possibility of having a "zfs ireceive " for an interactive receive similar to the ufsrestore -i command? After twenty one years of working with Sun kit, my experience is that I either have to restore a complete filesystem (three disks failing in a RAID5 set) or I have to restore an individual file or directory. I have been told that "zfs receive" is very quick at restoring a filesystem unfortunately it does not permit an interactive restore of selected files and directories. Which is why I would like to see "zfs ireceive" if possible which work on a zfs send created data stream but allow for interactive or specified files or directories to be restored. Is does not matter if it is 10x slower than restoring a complete filesystem, it is the ability to selectively restore directories and files. TIA Russell ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
