Hi.
Thumpers come with Solaris pre-installed and already configured one pool.
It's a collection of raid-z1 groups but some groups are smaller than the others.
I'll reconfigure it anyway but I'm just curious what side-effects can there be
with such a config?
Any performance hit? All space
Luke Lonergan writes:
Robert,
I belive it's not solved yet but you may want to try with
latest nevada and see if there's a difference.
It's fixed in the upcoming Solaris 10 U3 and also in Solaris Express
post build 47 I think.
- Luke
This one is not yet fixed :
Chris Gerhard wrote:
One question that keeps coming up in my discussions about ZFS is the lack of
user quotas.
Typically this comes from people who have many tens of thousands (30,000 -
100,000) of users where they feel that having a file system per user will not
be manageable. I would agree
Chris Gerhard writes:
One question that keeps coming up in my discussions about ZFS is the lack of
user quotas.
Typically this comes from people who have many tens of thousands
(30,000 - 100,000) of users where they feel that having a file system
per user will not be manageable. I
Adam Leventhal wrote:
Rick McNeal and I have been working on building support for sharing ZVOLs
as iSCSI targets directly into ZFS. Below is the proposal I'll be
submitting to PSARC. Comments and suggestions are welcome.
Adam
---8---
iSCSI/ZFS Integration
A. Overview
The goal of this
Hello Richard,
Wednesday, November 1, 2006, 11:36:14 PM, you wrote:
REP Adam Leventhal wrote:
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 04:00:43PM -0500, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Lets say server A has the pool with NFS shared, or iSCSI shared,
volumes. Server A exports the pool or goes down. Server B imports the
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 12:10:06AM -0800, eric kustarz wrote:
Like the 'sharenfs' property, 'shareiscsi' indicates if a ZVOL should
be exported as an iSCSI target. The acceptable values for this
property
are 'on', 'off', and 'direct'. In the future, we may support other
How much memory in the V210 ?
UFS will recycle it's own pages while creating files that
are big. ZFS working against a large heap of free memory will
cache the data (why not?). The problem is that ZFS does not
know when to stop. During the subsequent memory/cache
reclaim, ZFS is potentially not
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 04:00:43PM -0500, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Spencer Shepler wrote:
On Wed, Adam Leventhal wrote:
On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 01:17:02PM -0500, Torrey McMahon wrote:
Is there going to be a method to override that on the import? I can see
a situation where you want to
Ceri Davies wrote:
For NFS, it's possible (but likely suboptimal) for clients to be
configured to mount the filesystem from server A and fail over to
server B, assuming that the pool import can happen quickly enough for
them not to receive ENOENT.
IIRC NFS client side failover is really only
The V120 has 4GB of RAM , on the HDS side we are in a RAID 5 on the LUN and not
shairing any ports on the MCdata, but with so much cache we aren't close to
taxing the disk. You mentioned the 50MB on the throughput and that's something
we've been wondering around here as to what the average is
On Thu, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Ceri Davies wrote:
For NFS, it's possible (but likely suboptimal) for clients to be
configured to mount the filesystem from server A and fail over to
server B, assuming that the pool import can happen quickly enough for
them not to receive ENOENT.
IIRC NFS
Roch - PAE wrote:
Chris Gerhard writes:
One question that keeps coming up in my discussions about ZFS is the lack
of user quotas.
Typically this comes from people who have many tens of thousands
(30,000 - 100,000) of users where they feel that having a file system
per user
Roch,
On 11/2/06 12:51 AM, Roch - PAE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This one is not yet fixed :
6415647 Sequential writing is jumping
Yep - I mistook this one for another problem with drive firmware on
pre-revenue units. Since Robert has a customer release X4500 it doesn't
have the firmware
Cyril Plisko wrote:
On 11/1/06, Adam Leventhal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What properties are you specifically interested in modifying?
LUN for example. How would I configure LUN via zfs command ?
You can't. Forgive my ignorance about how iSCSI is deployed, but why
would
you want/need to
Adam Leventhal wrote:
On Thu, Nov 02, 2006 at 12:10:06AM -0800, eric kustarz wrote:
Like the 'sharenfs' property, 'shareiscsi' indicates if a ZVOL should
be exported as an iSCSI target. The acceptable values for this
property
are 'on', 'off', and 'direct'. In the future, we
On 11/2/06, Rick McNeal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The administration of FC devices for the target mode needs some serious
thinking so that we don't end up with a real nightmare on our hands.
As you point out the FC world doesn't separate the port address from the
target name. Therefore each FC
On 11/2/06, Rick McNeal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's how the shareiscsi property works today.
So, why manipulating LUN is impossible via zfs ???
A ZVOL is a single LU, so there's nothing to manipulate. Could you give
me an example of what you think should/could be changed?
I was
Cyril Plisko wrote:
On 11/2/06, Rick McNeal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's how the shareiscsi property works today.
So, why manipulating LUN is impossible via zfs ???
A ZVOL is a single LU, so there's nothing to manipulate. Could you give
me an example of what you think should/could
Hello Richard,
Thursday, November 2, 2006, 7:08:17 PM, you wrote:
REP Robert Milkowski wrote:
Thumpers come with Solaris pre-installed and already configured one pool.
It's a collection of raid-z1 groups but some groups are smaller than the
others.
I'll reconfigure it anyway but I'm
Robert Milkowski wrote:
REP P.S. did you upgrade the OS? I'd consider the need for 'zpool upgrade' to
be
REP a bug.
on one thumper I reinstalled OS to S10U3 beta and imported default
pool. On another I put snv_49 and imported pool. Then I destroyed
pools and I'm experimenting with different
I don't see how you can get both end-to-end data integrity and
read avoidance.
Checksum the individual RAID-5 blocks, rather than the entire stripe?
In more detail: Allow the pointer to the block to contain one checksum per
device used (the count will vary if you're using a RAID-Z style
Matt,
Matthew Flanagan wrote:
mkfile 100m /data
zpool create tank /data
...
rm /data
...
panic[cpu0]/thread=2a1011d3cc0: ZFS: I/O failure
(write on unknown off 0: zio 60007432bc0 [L0
unallocated] 4000L/400P DVA[0]=0:b000:400
DVA[1]=0:120a000:400 fletcher4 lzjb BE contiguous
birth=6
Checksum the individual RAID-5 blocks, rather than the entire stripe?
Depending on your the number of drives in your RAID-Z, this will
increase your metadata size by N-1 * 32 bytes. Would this not be an
undesirable cost increase on the metadata size?
In more detail: Allow the pointer to
24 matches
Mail list logo
