Anton B. Rang wrote:
Here's one possible reason that a read-only ZFS would be useful: DVD-ROM
distribution.
built-in compression works for DVDs, too.
Sector errors on DVD are not uncommon. Writing a DVD in ZFS format with
duplicated data blocks would help protect against that problem, at th
Here's one possible reason that a read-only ZFS would be useful: DVD-ROM
distribution.
Sector errors on DVD are not uncommon. Writing a DVD in ZFS format with
duplicated data blocks would help protect against that problem, at the cost of
50% or so disk space. That sounds like a lot, but with Bl
Those are interesting results. Does this mean you've already written lzo
support into ZFS? If not, that would be a great next step -- licensing
issues can be sorted out later...
Adam
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:40:48AM -0700, roland wrote:
> btw - is there some way to directly compare lzjb vs lzo
>And the posts related to leopard handed out at wwdc 07 seems to
>indicate that zfs is not yet fully implemented, which might be the
>real reason that zfs isn't the default fs.
I suspect there are two other strong reasons why it's not the default.
1. ZFS is a new and immature file system. HFS+ h
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:22:34PM -0700, Darren Dunham wrote:
>
> The configuration of any vdev that you create does not constrain you
> with any vdevs you want to add to the pool in the future. You can start
> with any of your three choices above and then add any of the other three
> to the sam
last number (2.99x) is compression ratio and was much better than lzjb.
not sure if there is some mistake here, i was quite surprised that it was so
much better than lzjb
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-d
> After getting a few replies on this, I've realized the following:
>
> If I have 3 disks in a raidz vdev and I want to add more storage in the
> future, I would need add another 3 disk raidz vdev.
This is not a constraint that ZFS forces on you.
> If I have 4 disks in a raidz2 vdev and I want t
Hi Victor,
the kernel panic in bug 6424466 resulted from overwriting some areas of the
disks, in this case I would expect at least strange things - ok, not exactly a
panic. In my case there was no messsing around with the underlying disks. The
fix only seems to avoid the panic and mentions no
I'm going to try 5 disks in raidz2 with 1 hot spare.
I read about this here:
http://prefetch.net/blog/index.php/2007/02/09/using-raidz2-and-hot-spares-on-older-sun-storage-arrays/
I don't have older disks, but they are consumer grade disks, and I've been
bitten by disks going dead before, thus
Ah, so you are the Richard behind those articles I've been mulling over! :-)
You blog posts helped me to realize there was much more forethought required
when setting up my ZFS pool(s).
I'm glad I'm not the only person with this question.
Whatever I decide, I will include in this thread.
On 6
After getting a few replies on this, I've realized the following:
If I have 3 disks in a raidz vdev and I want to add more storage in the
future, I would need add another 3 disk raidz vdev.
If I have 4 disks in a raidz2 vdev and I want to add more storage in the
future, I would need add another 4
Joe S wrote:
I'm playing around with ZFS and want to figure out the best use of my 6x
300GB SATA drives. The purpose of the drives is to store all of my data
at home (video, photos, music, etc). I'm debating between:
6x 300GB disks in a single raidz2 pool
--or--
2x (3x 300GB disks in a pool)
The Pentium 4 D have 64bit in them (ok not the bottom one)
So you can have your Pentium 4D running in 64bit mode.
Are you buying both kit or do you already have one of these boxes?
Also how many users are going to be using this file server?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
ok if its just storing stuff raidz2 is probably the best use of space.
raidz2 on 5 disk and one spare - this can take 3 disk failing before you lose
your data.
The three strip mirror will give you nice performance but from the sounds of it
you don't need it.
This message posted from opensola
My understanding is that if I create a 6 disk raidz2,
# zpool create tank raidz2 disk0 disk1 disk2 disk3 disk4 disk5
I cannot add more disks to this set. I cannot expand this. I have to destroy
the raidz2 it and recreate it if I want to increase capacity.
Whereas with 2 way mirrors, i can just k
On 16 June, 2007 - George sent me these 1,1K bytes:
> Where can you find the timeframe on that Tomas?
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6460622
/Tomas
--
Tomas Ögren, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`-
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Will Murnane wrote:
On 6/15/07, Ian Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alec Muffett wrote:
> 2) I've considered pivot-root solutions based around a USB stick or
> drive; cute, but I want a single tower box and no "dongles"
You could buy a laptop disk, or mount one of these
Joe S gmail.com> writes:
>
> I'm going to create 3x 2-way mirrors. I guess I don't really *need* the
> raidz at this point. My biggest concern with raidz is getting locked into
> a configuration i can't grow out of. I like the idea of adding more
> 2 way mirrors to a pool.
The raidz2 option will
>Ok. That helps. I'm trying to wrap my brain around the best way to do this.
>I'm going to try to duplicate what you are doing and see how that works out.
>I'm going to create 3x 2-way mirrors. I guess I don't really *need* the
>raidz at this point. My biggest concern with raidz is getting locked
Joe S schrieb:
I've read that ZFS runs best on 64 bit solaris.
Which box would make the best (fastest) fileserver:
Sun v120
650 MHz UltraSPARC IIi
2GB RAM
--or--
Intel D875PBZ
Intel Pentium D 3.0 GHz (32-bit)
2GB RAM
I'd go with the Intel server. If you want to build a pure file server just
Ok. That helps. I'm trying to wrap my brain around the best way to do this.
I'm going to try to duplicate what you are doing and see how that works out.
I'm going to create 3x 2-way mirrors. I guess I don't really *need* the
raidz at this point. My biggest concern with raidz is getting locked into
Joe S wrote:
> I'm playing around with ZFS and want to figure out the best use of my
> 6x 300GB SATA drives. The purpose of the drives is to store all of my
> data at home (video, photos, music, etc). I'm debating between:
>
> 6x 300GB disks in a single raidz2 pool
>
> --or--
>
> 2x (3x 300GB disks
I've read that ZFS runs best on 64 bit solaris.
Which box would make the best (fastest) fileserver:
Sun v120
650 MHz UltraSPARC IIi
2GB RAM
--or--
Intel D875PBZ
Intel Pentium D 3.0 GHz (32-bit)
2GB RAM
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensol
I'm playing around with ZFS and want to figure out the best use of my 6x
300GB SATA drives. The purpose of the drives is to store all of my data at
home (video, photos, music, etc). I'm debating between:
6x 300GB disks in a single raidz2 pool
--or--
2x (3x 300GB disks in a pool) mirrored
I've
24 matches
Mail list logo
