On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:59:29AM +0800, Raymond Xiong wrote:
It doesn't. Page 11 of the following slides illustrates how COW
works in ZFS:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/zfs_last.pdf
Blocks containing active data are never overwritten in place;
instead, a new block is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:59:29AM +0800, Raymond Xiong wrote:
It doesn't. Page 11 of the following slides illustrates how COW
works in ZFS:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/zfs_last.pdf
Blocks containing active data are never overwritten in
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
offtopic query :
How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
The real problem is VA fragmentation, not consumption. Over time, ZFS's
heavy use of the VM system causes the address space to
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 09:50:47AM +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
offtopic query :
How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
The real problem is VA fragmentation, not consumption.
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
offtopic query :
How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
The real problem is VA fragmentation, not consumption. Over time, ZFS's
heavy use
As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
Here is what I just tried :
# zfs list
NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT
zfs0 100G 65.8G 27.5K /export/zfs
On 7/7/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok.. not exactly a ZFS native solution but...
As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
snip
(2) perhaps I can use find and tar or cpio to
To put the cat amongst the pigeons here, there were those
within Sun that tried to tell the ZFS team that a backup
program such as zfsdump was necessary but we got told
that amanda and other tools were what people used these
days (in corporate accounts) and therefore zfsdump and
zfsrestore wasn't
Hello Peter,
Friday, July 7, 2006, 2:02:49 PM, you wrote:
PvG Can anyone tell me why pool created with zpool are also zfs file
PvG systems (and mounted) which can be used for storing files? It
PvG would have been more transparent if pool would not allow the storage of
files.
Pool itself is
Why aren't you using amanda or something else that uses
tar as the means by which you do a backup?
Using something like tar to take a backup forgoes the ability to do things like
the clever incremental backups that ZFS can achieve though; e.g. only backing
the few blocks that have changed in
Hi,
Note though that neither of them will backup the ZFS properties, but
even zfs send/recv doesn't do that either.
From a previous post, i remember someone saying that was being added,
or at least being suggested.
Patrick
___
zfs-discuss mailing
On 7/7/06, Darren Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To put the cat amongst the pigeons here, there were those
within Sun that tried to tell the ZFS team that a backup
program such as zfsdump was necessary but we got told
that amanda and other tools were what people used these
days (in corporate
If you are going to use Veritas NetBackup why not use the
native Solaris client ?
I don't suppose anyone knows if Networker will become zfs-aware at any
point?
e.g.
backing up properties
backing up an entire pool as a single save set
efficient incrementals (something similar to zfs
Eric Schrock wrote:
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:53:32PM +0530, Pramod Batni wrote:
offtopic query :
How can ZFS require more VM address space but not more VM ?
The real problem is VA fragmentation, not consumption. Over time, ZFS's
heavy use of the VM system causes the address
Dennis Clarke wrote:
I seem to have this unwritten expectation that with ZFS I would get
everything that I always had with UFS and SVM without losing a feature. The
ufsbackup and ufsrestore command will both do a complete dump of a UFS
filesystem plus incrementals and all the metadata also.
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:15:19PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
A very good suggestion.
However ... there had to be a however eh?
I seem to have this unwritten expectation that with ZFS I would get
everything that I always had with UFS and SVM without losing a feature. The
ufsbackup and
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 08:20:50AM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
...
Of course it took a number of hours for that I/O error to appear because the
tape
Dennis Clarke wrote:
I seem to have this unwritten expectation that with ZFS I would get
everything that I always had with UFS and SVM without losing a feature.
The
ufsbackup and ufsrestore command will both do a complete dump of a UFS
filesystem plus incrementals and all the metadata also.
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 01:15:19PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
A very good suggestion.
However ... there had to be a however eh?
I seem to have this unwritten expectation that with ZFS I would get
everything that I always had with UFS and SVM without losing a feature.
The
ufsbackup and
Why aren't you using amanda or something else that uses
tar as the means by which you do a backup?
Using something like tar to take a backup forgoes the ability to do things
like the clever incremental backups that ZFS can achieve though; e.g. only
backing the few blocks that have changed
Dennis Clarke wrote:
(2.2) Use Samba to share out the whole filesystem tree and then
backup with Veritas NetBackup on a Microsoft Windows server.
If you are going to use Veritas NetBackup why not use the native Solaris
client ?
I don't have it here at home and its not
Hi,
Note though that neither of them will backup the ZFS properties, but
even zfs send/recv doesn't do that either.
From a previous post, i remember someone saying that was being added,
or at least being suggested.
Perhaps Solaris 10 Update 4 and snv_b54 or similar time frame.
On Jul 7, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Bill Moore wrote:
That said, we actually did talk to a lot of customers during the
development of ZFS. The overwhelming majority of them had a backup
scheme that did not involve ufsdump. I know there are folks that live
and die by ufsdump, but most customers have
Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
...
# mt -f /dev/rmt/0cbn status
HP DAT-72 tape drive:
sense key(0x0)= No Additional Sense residual= 0
Darren Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To put the cat amongst the pigeons here, there were those
within Sun that tried to tell the ZFS team that a backup
program such as zfsdump was necessary but we got told
that amanda and other tools were what people used these
days (in corporate accounts)
Justin Stringfellow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why aren't you using amanda or something else that uses
tar as the means by which you do a backup?
Using something like tar to take a backup forgoes the ability to do things
like the clever incremental backups that ZFS can achieve though; e.g.
Mike said:
3) ZFS ability to recognize duplicate blocks and store only one copy.
I'm not sure the best way to do this, but my thought was to have ZFS
remember what the checksums of every block are. As new blocks are
written, the checksum of the new block is compared to known checksums.
If
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Justin Stringfellow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why aren't you using amanda or something else that uses
tar as the means by which you do a backup?
Using something like tar to take a backup forgoes the ability
to do things like the clever incremental backups that ZFS can
So I'm looking to build a home disk server (with some database and web
activity, and email) using ZFS and hence Solaris, and I'm finding it hard to
locate hardware that's known to work.
I need a tower server, and something with office-level rather than lab-level
noise output. I need an
One of the obvious big differences between RAID-Z and RAID-5 is that Z can be
run on just two disks. I do note it suggests you really want three, but I've
run it on two (slices rather than whole disks, in a small test environment) and
it works and recovers from removal or severe damage to
So the question becomes, what are the tradeoffs between running a two-way
mirror vs. running RAID-Z on two disks?
A two-way mirror would be better -- no parity generation, and you have
the ability to attach/detach for more or less replication. (We could
optimize the RAID-Z code for the
Thanks to Constantin Gonzalez and Eric Schrock for answering my initial
report.
- Truncating files to free up some space had worked in the past but not
this time.
From my experiment it seems to be possible to fill up a filesystem
beyond that, for even truncating was met by No space left on
Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As near as I can tell the ZFS filesystem has no way to backup easily to a
tape in the same way that ufsdump has served for years and years.
...
# mt -f /dev/rmt/0cbn status
HP DAT-72 tape drive:
sense key(0x0)= No Additional Sense residual= 0
So the question becomes, what are the tradeoffs
between running a two-way
mirror vs. running RAID-Z on two disks?
A two-way mirror would be better -- no parity
generation, and you have
the ability to attach/detach for more or less
replication. (We could
optimize the RAID-Z code for
Dale Ghent wrote:
ZFS we all know is just more than a dumb fs like UFS is. As mentioned,
it has metadata in the form of volume options and whatnot. So, sure, I
can still use my Legato/NetBackup/Amanda and friends to back that data
up... but if the worst were to happen and I find myself having
Something like a Sun Ultra-20/X2100? These use a
fairly generic Opteron-based
motherboard with the familiar all-in-one I/O chipset.
The product differentiation
omes in the form factor, service processor, high
quality power supplies,
expandability, etc.
Yes, or the X4100. I believe
36 matches
Mail list logo
