John Blinka wrote:
> To all who replied to my distress signal,
>
> The repair turned out to be pretty painless. In two ways:
>
> First, getting quality advice from all of you sans the roasting I
> deserved ;), and
>
> Second, gdisk fixed the gpt header and partition table easily (details
> below).
To all who replied to my distress signal,
The repair turned out to be pretty painless. In two ways:
First, getting quality advice from all of you sans the roasting I deserved
;), and
Second, gdisk fixed the gpt header and partition table easily (details
below). After that, I rebooted, zfs reco
On 3/1/21 3:25 PM, John Blinka wrote:
HI, Gentooers!
Hi,
So, I typed dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sd, and despite
hitting ctrl-c quite quickly, zeroed out some portion of the initial
part of a disk. Which did this to my zfs raidz3 array:
OOPS!!!
NAME
Firstly, I'll say I'm not experienced, but knowing a fair bit about raid
and recovering corrupted arrays ...
On 01/03/2021 22:25, John Blinka wrote:
HI, Gentooers!
So, I typed dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sd, and despite
hitting ctrl-c quite quickly, zeroed out some portion of the initial
part of a
HI, Gentooers!
So, I typed dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sd, and despite
hitting ctrl-c quite quickly, zeroed out some portion of the initial
part of a disk. Which did this to my zfs raidz3 array:
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
zfs
Rich Freeman had the right clue.
Some time ago, after successfully installing zfs, I changed root's
umask to 0027. This had the effect of changing the permissions on
/lib/modules/X.Y.Z-gentoo to drwxr-x--- on a subsequent kernel
upgrade. This prevents emerge (once it switches to user:group
porta
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:13 PM, John Blinka wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:54 PM, John Covici wrote:
>
>> What is your umask? I had troubles like this when I had too
>> aggressive umask of I think 027 rather than 022.
>
> It is indeed 027, and I wondered whether that might have been what w
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 7:14 PM, John Blinka wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Yes, and in fact it is in the output when emerge fails:
>> /var/tmp/portage/sys-kernel/spl-0.7.1/work/spl-0.7.1/config.log
>
Digging into config.log after a hiatus to attend to other
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Yes, and in fact it is in the output when emerge fails:
> /var/tmp/portage/sys-kernel/spl-0.7.1/work/spl-0.7.1/config.log
Ah-ha! I see it now. That['s valuable, and I'll take a closer look. Thanks!
John
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:54 PM, John Covici wrote:
> What is your umask? I had troubles like this when I had too
> aggressive umask of I think 027 rather than 022.
It is indeed 027, and I wondered whether that might have been what was
behind the error, hence I tried chmod -R 777 the entire ke
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:46:59 -0400,
John Blinka wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> First, I appreciate your thoughts and comments.
>
> >
> > I suspect your sources have gotten messed up in some way. I've run
> > into issues like this when I do something like bu
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 3:46 PM, John Blinka wrote:
>
> I think it would be informative if I could somehow see exactly what
> commands are being run when the error occurs. Is there a way of doing
> that?
>
Yes, and in fact it is in the output when emerge fails:
/var/tmp/portage/sys-kernel/spl-0
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
First, I appreciate your thoughts and comments.
>
> I suspect your sources have gotten messed up in some way. I've run
> into issues like this when I do something like build a kernel with an
> odd umask so that the portage user can't read the
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:19 PM, John Blinka wrote:
>
> Hope someone can shed some light on continuing emerge failures for zfs
> since gnetoo-sources-4.4.39 and zfs-0.6.5.8. I was able to install
> that version of zfs with that kernel last November on one of my
> machines, but have been unable to
Hi, Gentoo,
Hope someone can shed some light on continuing emerge failures for zfs
since gnetoo-sources-4.4.39 and zfs-0.6.5.8. I was able to install
that version of zfs with that kernel last November on one of my
machines, but have been unable to upgrade zfs since then, or to
install it in any n
Hi folks,
I'm currently rethinking the filesystem structure of my file server. My
current setup is as follows:
DM Raid 10 (4x3TiB) -> Luks -> Ext4
At the moment the Raid 10 costs 50% of available memory, in future, I'd
like to use Raid5 which would only costs 25% in my case.
But more important:
Am 23.02.2015 um 22:57 schrieb lee:
> Hi,
>
> is zfs setting the io scheduler to noop for the disks in the pool?
no?
I have it set in an init script.
>
>
> I'm currently finding that the IO performance is horrible with a pool
> made from two mirrored disks ...
>
>
>
then set it to noop.
Hi,
is zfs setting the io scheduler to noop for the disks in the pool?
I'm currently finding that the IO performance is horrible with a pool
made from two mirrored disks ...
--
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swallow us. Finally, this fear has becom
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 01:13:06AM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> >
> > Any time you can't see how to enable a kernel option, just search for it and
> > look at the Selected By field to see what you need to turn it on:
> >
> > Symbol: ZLIB_DEFLATE [=y]
> > Type : tristate
> > Defined at li
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 09:47:44PM +, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:21:42 -0600, Bruce Hill wrote:
>
> > > You could at least say how you did it. *sigh*
> > >
> > > maybe even add the kernel part to https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ZFS
> >
> > mingdao@baruch ~ $ zgrep CONFIG_ZL
Am 14.12.2013 01:04, schrieb Bruce Hill:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 09:08:54PM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
well, you won't find it in menuconfig. Or at least I couldn't. You can
reach that option in xconfig.
On the other hand ZLIB_DEFLATE is turned on by a douzend of other
options that it i
Am 14.12.2013 01:04, schrieb Bruce Hill:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 09:08:54PM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> well, you won't find it in menuconfig. Or at least I couldn't. You can
>> reach that option in xconfig.
>>
>> On the other hand ZLIB_DEFLATE is turned on by a douzend of other
>> opti
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 12:53:39AM +0100, Michael Rühmann wrote:
> >> mingdao@baruch ~ $ zgrep CONFIG_ZLIB_DEFLATE /proc/config.gz
> >> CONFIG_ZLIB_DEFLATE=y
> >>
> >> What *is* so difficult about that?
> > well, you won't find it in menuconfig. Or at least I couldn't. You can
> > reach that optio
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 09:08:54PM +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
> well, you won't find it in menuconfig. Or at least I couldn't. You can
> reach that option in xconfig.
>
> On the other hand ZLIB_DEFLATE is turned on by a douzend of other
> options that it is VERY probable you never have
Am 13.12.2013 21:08, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
Am 13.12.2013 20:21, schrieb Bruce Hill:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:59:41PM +0100, hasufell wrote:
The problem is now: How do i set CONFIG_ZLIB_DEFLATE in menuconfig?
Maybe i'm completely blind...
Thanks in advance for any help,
Mosh
lol, d
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:21:42 -0600, Bruce Hill wrote:
> > You could at least say how you did it. *sigh*
> >
> > maybe even add the kernel part to https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ZFS
>
> mingdao@baruch ~ $ zgrep CONFIG_ZLIB_DEFLATE /proc/config.gz
> CONFIG_ZLIB_DEFLATE=y
>
> What *is* so difficu
On 12/13/2013 08:21 PM, Bruce Hill wrote:
>
> What *is* so difficult about that?
>
Nothing.
Am 13.12.2013 20:21, schrieb Bruce Hill:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:59:41PM +0100, hasufell wrote:
The problem is now: How do i set CONFIG_ZLIB_DEFLATE in menuconfig?
Maybe i'm completely blind...
Thanks in advance for any help,
Mosh
>>> lol, done!
>>> As i thou
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 07:59:41PM +0100, hasufell wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem is now: How do i set CONFIG_ZLIB_DEFLATE in menuconfig?
> >> Maybe i'm completely blind...
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance for any help,
> >> Mosh
> >>
> > lol, done!
> > As i thought...i was blind :D
> >
>
> You cou
On 12/13/2013 06:48 PM, Michael Rühmann wrote:
> Am 13.12.2013 18:34, schrieb Michael Rühmann:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> had some troubles to build sys-kernel/spl-0.6.2-r2.
>>
>>
>> >>> Emerging (4 of 6) sys-kernel/spl-0.6.2-r2
>> * spl-0.6.2.tar.gz SHA256 SHA512 WHIRLPOOL size ;-)
>> ...
Am 13.12.2013 18:34, schrieb Michael Rühmann:
Hi all,
had some troubles to build sys-kernel/spl-0.6.2-r2.
>>> Emerging (4 of 6) sys-kernel/spl-0.6.2-r2
* spl-0.6.2.tar.gz SHA256 SHA512 WHIRLPOOL size ;-)
...[ ok ]
* spl-0.6.2-p1.ta
Hi all,
had some troubles to build sys-kernel/spl-0.6.2-r2.
>>> Emerging (4 of 6) sys-kernel/spl-0.6.2-r2
* spl-0.6.2.tar.gz SHA256 SHA512 WHIRLPOOL size ;-)
...[ ok ]
* spl-0.6.2-p1.tar.xz SHA256 SHA512 WHIRLPOOL size ;-)
...
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:48 AM, James wrote:
> Is the latest version of SystemRescue the best media to use to format
> disks with ZFS? Caveats?
>
the latest gentoo live image has full zfs support on it
--
Douglas J Hunley (doug.hun...@gmail.com)
Twitter: @hunleyd
Hello,
>
So after readaing quite a bit about ZFS, I still have some simple
question(s). Can you install ZFS on a single drive? Does that make sense
or is it "illogical/dumb" to do so?
Is the latest version of SystemRescue the best media to use to format
disks with ZFS? Caveats?
Last, after
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>
>>> Why do you believe it has forked?
>>> This project does not even has a source code repository and the fact that
>>> they refer to illumos for sources makes me wonder whether it is open for
>>> contributing.
>>>
>>> Jörg
>>>
>> Well, it seemed to me that
On Sep 21, 2013 7:54 PM, "thegeezer" wrote:
>
> On 09/17/2013 08:20 AM, Grant wrote:
> > I'm convinced I need 3-disk RAID1 so I can lose 2 drives and keep
> > running. I'd also like to stripe for performance, resulting in
> > RAID10. It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
> > 6-
On 09/17/2013 08:20 AM, Grant wrote:
> I'm convinced I need 3-disk RAID1 so I can lose 2 drives and keep
> running. I'd also like to stripe for performance, resulting in
> RAID10. It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
> 6-disk RAID10 so ZFS looks very interesting.
>
> Can I oper
>> > How about hardened? Does ZFS have any problems interacting with
>> > grsecurity or a hardened profile?
>>
>> Has anyone tried hardened and ZFS together?
>
> I did - I had some problems, but I'm not sure if they were caused by the
> combination of ZFS and hardened. There were some issues updat
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 06:41:47PM -0400, Douglas J Hunley wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:32 PM, wrote:
>
> Spo do I need that overlay at all, or just emerge zfs and its module?
>
>
> You do *not* need the overlay. Everything you need is in portage nowadays
>
Afaik the overlay even com
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:20:53AM -0700, Grant wrote:
> > How about hardened? Does ZFS have any problems interacting with
> > grsecurity or a hardened profile?
>
> Has anyone tried hardened and ZFS together?
>
Hi,
I did - I had some problems, but I'm not sure if they were caused by the
combinat
> How about hardened? Does ZFS have any problems interacting with
> grsecurity or a hardened profile?
Has anyone tried hardened and ZFS together?
- Grant
Am 19.09.2013 06:47, schrieb Grant:
turn off readahead. ZFS' own readahead and the kernel's clash - badly.
Turn off kernel's readahead for a visible performance boon.
>>> You are probably not talking about ZFS readahead but about the ARC.
>> which does prefetching. So yes.
> I'm taking no
On 2013-09-20 5:17 AM, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
Douglas J Hunley wrote:
1TB drives are right on the border of switching from RAIDZ to RAIDZ2.
You'll see people argue for both sides at this size, but the 'saner
default' would be to use RAIDZ2. You're going to lose storage space, but
gain an extr
Douglas J Hunley wrote:
> 1TB drives are right on the border of switching from RAIDZ to RAIDZ2.
> You'll see people argue for both sides at this size, but the 'saner
> default' would be to use RAIDZ2. You're going to lose storage space, but
> gain an extra parity drive (think RAID6). Consumer gra
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:32 PM, wrote:
> Spo do I need that overlay at all, or just emerge zfs and its module?
You do *not* need the overlay. Everything you need is in portage nowadays
--
Douglas J Hunley (doug.hun...@gmail.com)
Twitter: @hunleyd
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> I have to set up a server w/ 8x 1TB in about 2 weeks and consider ZFS as
> well, at least for data. So root-fs would go onto 2x 1TB hdds with
> conventional partitioning and something like ext4.
>
> 6x 1TB would be available for data .
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:32 PM, wrote:
> Spo do I need that overlay at all, or just emerge zfs and its module?
You do *not* need the overlay. Everything you need is in portage nowadays
--
Douglas J Hunley (doug.hun...@gmail.com)
Twitter: @hunleyd
Dale wrote:
> > Why do you believe it has forked?
> > This project does not even has a source code repository and the fact that
> > they refer to illumos for sources makes me wonder whether it is open for
> > contributing.
> >
> > Jörg
> >
>
> Well, it seemed to me that it either changed its nam
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>
>> Grant wrote:
> Interesting news related to ZFS:
>
> http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page
I wonder if this will be added to the kernel at some point in the
future? May even be their intention?
>>> I think the CDDL license is what's keep
Dale wrote:
> Grant wrote:
> >>> Interesting news related to ZFS:
> >>>
> >>> http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page
> >> I wonder if this will be added to the kernel at some point in the
> >> future? May even be their intention?
> > I think the CDDL license is what's keeping ZFS out of the kernel,
Grant wrote:
> >> Interesting news related to ZFS:
> >>
> >> http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page
> >
> > I wonder if this will be added to the kernel at some point in the
> > future? May even be their intention?
>
> I think the CDDL license is what's keeping ZFS out of the kernel,
> although some
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Dale wrote:
> Grant wrote:
Interesting news related to ZFS:
http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page
>>> I wonder if this will be added to the kernel at some point in the
>>> future? May even be their intention?
>> I think the CDDL license is what's keepi
Grant wrote:
>>> Interesting news related to ZFS:
>>>
>>> http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page
>> I wonder if this will be added to the kernel at some point in the
>> future? May even be their intention?
> I think the CDDL license is what's keeping ZFS out of the kernel,
> although some argue that i
>>> turn off readahead. ZFS' own readahead and the kernel's clash - badly.
>>> Turn off kernel's readahead for a visible performance boon.
>> You are probably not talking about ZFS readahead but about the ARC.
>
> which does prefetching. So yes.
I'm taking notes on this so I want to clarify, when
>> Interesting news related to ZFS:
>>
>> http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
> I wonder if this will be added to the kernel at some point in the
> future? May even be their intention?
I think the CDDL license is what's keeping ZFS out of the kernel,
although some argue that it should be integra
Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> Interesting news related to ZFS:
>
> http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page
>
>
I wonder if this will be added to the kernel at some point in the
future? May even be their intention?
Dale
:-) :-)
--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you underst
Am 18.09.2013 11:56, schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>> turn off readahead. ZFS' own readahead and the kernel's clash - badly.
>> Turn off kernel's readahead for a visible performance boon.
> You are probably not talking about ZFS readahead but about the ARC.
>
> Jörg
>
w
Am 18.09.2013 09:26, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
> rootfs on ZFS or "everything on ZFS" would have advantages, sure. No
> partitioning at all, resizeable zfs-filesystems for everything,
> checksums for everything ... you name it.
>
> In my case I have to decide until Sep, 25th -> installation d
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> turn off readahead. ZFS' own readahead and the kernel's clash - badly.
> Turn off kernel's readahead for a visible performance boon.
You are probably not talking about ZFS readahead but about the ARC.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg S
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:22:29 -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
> Just wondering if anyone experienced running ZFS on Gentoo finds this
> wiki article worthy of use: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ZFS
Yes, it is useful. However I have recently stopped using the option to
built ZFS into the kernel as I ran int
Am 18.09.2013 06:11, schrieb Grant:
>> I have to set up a server w/ 8x 1TB in about 2 weeks and consider ZFS as
>> well, at least for data. So root-fs would go onto 2x 1TB hdds with
>> conventional partitioning and something like ext4.
>
> Is a layout like this with the data on ZFS and the root-fs
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 02:11:33PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> Is there a good place to read about these kinds of tuning parameters?
Just wondering if anyone experienced running ZFS on Gentoo finds this wiki
article worthy of use: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ZFS
--
Happy Penguin Computers
Besides performance, are there any drawbacks to ZFS compared to ext4?
How about hardened? Does ZFS have any problems interacting with
grsecurity or a hardened profile?
- Grant
>> Besides performance, are there any drawbacks to ZFS compared to ext4?
>>
> do yourself three favours:
>
> use ECC ram. Lots of it. 16GB DDR3 1600 ECC ram cost you less than 170€.
> And it is worth it. ZFS showed me just how many silent corruptions can
> happen on a 'stable' system. Errors never
> I have to set up a server w/ 8x 1TB in about 2 weeks and consider ZFS as
> well, at least for data. So root-fs would go onto 2x 1TB hdds with
> conventional partitioning and something like ext4.
Is a layout like this with the data on ZFS and the root-fs on ext4 a
better choice than ZFS all aroun
Performance doesn't seem to be one of ZFS's strong points. Is it
considered suitable for a high-performance server?
>>>
>>> ZFS is one of the fastest FS I am aware of (if not the fastest).
>>> You need a sufficient amount of RAM to make the ARC useful.
>>
>> How much RAM is that?
>
> 1G
>>> Any controller that claims RAID10 on a server with 6 drive bays should
>>> be able to put all six drives in an array. But you'll get a three-way
>>> stripe (better performance) instead of a three-way mirror (better fault
>>> tolerance).
>
> I forget why I even brought it up. I think it was in o
On 2013-09-17 1:07 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 09/17/2013 01:00 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
But not 6-drive RAID w/ hot spare... ;) Anyone who can't afford to add a
single additional drive for the piece of mind has no business buying the
RAID card to begin with...
Most of our servers only come w
Am 17.09.2013 19:34, schrieb Tanstaafl:
> On 2013-09-17 1:07 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 09/17/2013 01:00 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>>
>>> But not 6-drive RAID w/ hot spare... ;) Anyone who can't afford to add a
>>> single additional drive for the piece of mind has no business buying the
>>> RAI
Am 17.09.2013 20:11, schrieb Tanstaafl:
> On 2013-09-17 2:00 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> wrote:
>> use ECC ram. Lots of it. 16GB DDR3 1600 ECC ram cost you less than 170€.
>> And it is worth it. ZFS showed me just how many silent corruptions can
>> happen on a 'stable' system. Errors never seen nei
Am 17.09.2013 20:11, schrieb cov...@ccs.covici.com:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>> Am 17.09.2013 09:20, schrieb Grant:
>>> I'm convinced I need 3-disk RAID1 so I can lose 2 drives and keep
>>> running. I'd also like to stripe for performance, resulting in
>>> RAID10. It sounds like most hard
On 2013-09-17 11:18 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Any controller that claims RAID10 on a server with 6 drive bays should
be able to put all six drives in an array. But you'll get a three-way
stripe (better performance) instead of a three-way mirror (better fault
tolerance).
So,
A B C
A B C
On 2013-09-17 2:00 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
wrote:
use ECC ram. Lots of it. 16GB DDR3 1600 ECC ram cost you less than 170€.
And it is worth it. ZFS showed me just how many silent corruptions can
happen on a 'stable' system. Errors never seen neither detected thanks
to using 'standard' ram.
turn
Am 17.09.2013 09:20, schrieb Grant:
> I'm convinced I need 3-disk RAID1 so I can lose 2 drives and keep
> running. I'd also like to stripe for performance, resulting in
> RAID10. It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
> 6-disk RAID10 so ZFS looks very interesting.
>
> Can I opera
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am 17.09.2013 09:20, schrieb Grant:
> > I'm convinced I need 3-disk RAID1 so I can lose 2 drives and keep
> > running. I'd also like to stripe for performance, resulting in
> > RAID10. It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
> > 6-disk RAID10 so ZFS
Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Grant wrote:
> > I'm convinced I need 3-disk RAID1 so I can lose 2 drives and keep
> > running. I'd also like to stripe for performance, resulting in
> > RAID10. It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
> > 6-disk RAID10 so
On 17/09/2013 15:22, Grant wrote:
>>> Performance doesn't seem to be one of ZFS's strong points. Is it
>>> considered suitable for a high-performance server?
>>
>> ZFS is one of the fastest FS I am aware of (if not the fastest).
>> You need a sufficient amount of RAM to make the ARC useful.
>
> H
On 2013-09-17 12:34 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
For maximum fault tolerance, what you really want is,
A B
A B
A B
but, like I said, it's hard to find in hardware. The standard I linked
to calls both of these "RAID10", thus the confusion.
Ok, I see where my confusion came in... when
On 09/17/2013 01:00 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> But not 6-drive RAID w/ hot spare... ;) Anyone who can't afford to add a
> single additional drive for the piece of mind has no business buying the
> RAID card to begin with...
Most of our servers only come with 6 drive bays -- that's why I have
this
On 09/17/2013 11:40 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-09-17 11:18 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> Any controller that claims RAID10 on a server with 6 drive bays should
>> be able to put all six drives in an array. But you'll get a three-way
>> stripe (better performance) instead of a three-way mirror
On 09/17/2013 09:21 AM, Grant wrote:
>>> It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
>>> 6-disk RAID10 so ZFS looks very interesting.
>>
>> ?? RAID 10 simply requires an even number of drives with a minimum of 4.
>
> OK, there seems to be some disagreement on this. Michael?
>
Any co
Grant wrote:
> >> Performance doesn't seem to be one of ZFS's strong points. Is it
> >> considered suitable for a high-performance server?
> >
> > ZFS is one of the fastest FS I am aware of (if not the fastest).
> > You need a sufficient amount of RAM to make the ARC useful.
>
> How much RAM is
>> Performance doesn't seem to be one of ZFS's strong points. Is it
>> considered suitable for a high-performance server?
>
> ZFS is one of the fastest FS I am aware of (if not the fastest).
> You need a sufficient amount of RAM to make the ARC useful.
How much RAM is that?
- Grant
>> It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
>> 6-disk RAID10 so ZFS looks very interesting.
>
> ?? RAID 10 simply requires an even number of drives with a minimum of 4.
OK, there seems to be some disagreement on this. Michael?
- Grant
On 2013-09-17 3:20 AM, Grant wrote:
It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
6-disk RAID10 so ZFS looks very interesting.
?? RAID 10 simply requires an even number of drives with a minimum of 4.
So, you certainly can have a 6 disk RAID10 - I've got a system with one
right now
On 2013-09-17 4:05 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
2. When comparing performance of 1 (one) drive, of course ZFS will
lose. But when you build a ZFS pool out of 3 pairs of mirrored drives,
throughput will increase significantly as ZFS has the ability to do
'load-balancing' among mirror-pairs (or, in ZFS
Grant wrote:
> Performance doesn't seem to be one of ZFS's strong points. Is it
> considered suitable for a high-performance server?
ZFS is one of the fastest FS I am aware of (if not the fastest).
You need a sufficient amount of RAM to make the ARC useful.
The only problem I am aware with ZFS
>>> I'm convinced I need 3-disk RAID1 so I can lose 2 drives and keep
>>> running. I'd also like to stripe for performance, resulting in
>>> RAID10. It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
>>> 6-disk RAID10 so ZFS looks very interesting.
>>>
>>> Can I operate ZFS RAID without a ha
>> It looks like there are comprehensive ZFS Gentoo docs
>> (http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/ZFS) but can anyone tell me from the real
>> world about how much extra difficulty/complexity is added to
>> installation and ongoing administration when choosing ZFS over ext4?
>
> Very very minimal. So minima
On 17/09/2013 10:05, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Grant wrote:
>> I'm convinced I need 3-disk RAID1 so I can lose 2 drives and keep
>> running. I'd also like to stripe for performance, resulting in
>> RAID10. It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
>> 6-
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Grant wrote:
> I'm convinced I need 3-disk RAID1 so I can lose 2 drives and keep
> running. I'd also like to stripe for performance, resulting in
> RAID10. It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
> 6-disk RAID10 so ZFS looks very interesting.
>
>
Am 17.09.2013 09:20, schrieb Grant:
Performance doesn't seem to be one of ZFS's strong points. Is it
considered suitable for a high-performance server?
A high performance server for what?
But you've already given yourself the answer: if high performance is
what you are aiming for it depends
I'm convinced I need 3-disk RAID1 so I can lose 2 drives and keep
running. I'd also like to stripe for performance, resulting in
RAID10. It sounds like most hardware controllers do not support
6-disk RAID10 so ZFS looks very interesting.
Can I operate ZFS RAID without a hardware RAID controller?
Hello,
I am using zfs for a while now. I am not using it for / but for /var and my
media collection. PORTDIR is /var/portage so portage files are on zfs too.
This resulted in portage being incredible slow. eix-sync took ages, emerge -
auv world gave you enought time to prepare a meal. And eat it
Anyone got ZFS working on their Gentoo install? I'm contemplating it, but
the wiki[1] confuses me a bit. Specifically, section '3 Installing into the
kernel directory (for static installs)' states:
This will generate the needed files, and copy them into the kernel sources
directory.
root # (cd /var
Am 30.05.2010 22:49, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=291540
new stable release 0.6.9 out today.
ebuild also in the mentioned bug.
Anyone using this ebuild?
I'd love to hear some feedback as the development on zfs-fuse.net goes
on. I think they could need some more testers as they have a new beta
out these days.
Have a look ;-)
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=291540
Stefan
97 matches
Mail list logo
