On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 06:41:42PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> There was an change request put in to disable snaps affecting quota limits
> -- not sure if it went anywhere.
>
This went back into snv_77 with:
6431277 want filesystem-only quotas
It is available as the 'refquota' property.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/20/2008 05:12:01 PM:
> All,
> I assume this issue is pretty old given the time ZFS has been
> around. I have tried searching the list but could not get understand
> the structure of how ZFS actually takes snapshot space into account.
>
Snapshot space recording does n
On Mar 20, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello Cyril,
>
> Thursday, March 20, 2008, 9:51:35 PM, you wrote:
>
> CP> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Mark A. Carlson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the answer is that the configuration is hidden
>>> and cannot be back
Hello Cyril,
Thursday, March 20, 2008, 9:51:35 PM, you wrote:
CP> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Mark A. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I think the answer is that the configuration is hidden
>> and cannot be backed up so that it can be easily restored
>> to a brand spanking new ma
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 03:12:01PM -0700, Walter Faleiro wrote:
> Layman's method would be to try and total the space it lists against each
> snapshot, but its not the case ZFS calculates. So I go on deleting the
> snapshots, until the last one.
Yes. This has been discussed before. There doesn't
All,
I assume this issue is pretty old given the time ZFS has been around. I have
tried searching the list but could not get understand the structure of how
ZFS actually takes snapshot space into account.
I have a user walter on whom I try to do the following ZFS operations
bash-3.00# zfs get quo
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Mark A. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think the answer is that the configuration is hidden
> and cannot be backed up so that it can be easily restored
> to a brand spanking new machine with new disks.
Hm, to which I can add that "zpool history" will
I think the answer is that the configuration is hidden
and cannot be backed up so that it can be easily restored
to a brand spanking new machine with new disks.
-- mark
Cyril Plisko wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Sachin Palav
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Friends
Can someone p
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Sachin Palav
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Friends
>
> Can someone please let me know how I can backup the ZFS configuration which
> is stored on the operating system.
The configuration of the ZFS pool is stored in the pool itself. That
means that the pool i
On Mar 20, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
>>
>> in that case .. try fixing the ARC size .. the dynamic resizing on
>> the ARC
>> can be less than optimal IMHO
>
> Is a 16GB ARC size not considered to be enough? ;-)
>
> I was only describin
Sachin Palav wrote:
> We are using this server as NFS & SAMBA server, we created ZFS file systems
> considering it features. But un-fortunately we are experiencing problems with
> every NFS client (almost all version os UNIX (AIX/Linux/HP). So I have now
> set the server to use NFS version 2, as
> Is a 16GB ARC size not considered to be enough? ;-)
>
> I was only describing the behavior that I observed. It seems to me
> that when large files are written very quickly, that when the file
> becomes bigger than the ARC, that what is contained in the ARC is
> mostly stale and does not help m
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
>
> in that case .. try fixing the ARC size .. the dynamic resizing on the ARC
> can be less than optimal IMHO
Is a 16GB ARC size not considered to be enough? ;-)
I was only describing the behavior that I observed. It seems to me
that when large fil
Hello Friends
Can someone please let me know how I can backup the ZFS configuration which is
stored on the operating system.
Thanks
Sachin Palav
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http:
We are using this server as NFS & SAMBA server, we created ZFS file systems
considering it features. But un-fortunately we are experiencing problems with
every NFS client (almost all version os UNIX (AIX/Linux/HP). So I have now set
the server to use NFS version 2, as most of the NFS clients wor
On 3/20/08, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bart Smaalders wrote:
> > On 4 commodity 500 GB SATA drives set up w/ RAID Z, my 2.6 Ghz dual
> > core AMD box sustains
> > 100+ MB/sec read or write it happily saturates a GB nic w/ multiple
> > concurrent reads over
> > Samba.
> >
> Th
Bart Smaalders wrote:
> On 4 commodity 500 GB SATA drives set up w/ RAID Z, my 2.6 Ghz dual
> core AMD box sustains
> 100+ MB/sec read or write it happily saturates a GB nic w/ multiple
> concurrent reads over
> Samba.
>
This leads me to a question I've been meaning to ask for a while. I'
Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just made a setup in our lab which should make ZFS fly, but unfortunately
> performance is significantly lower than expected: for large sequential data
> transfers write speed is about 50 MB/s while I was expecting at least 150
> MB/s.
>
> Setup
> -
>
Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just made a setup in our lab which should make ZFS fly, but unfortunately
> performance is significantly lower than expected: for large sequential data
> transfers write speed is about 50 MB/s while I was expecting at least 150
> MB/s.
>
> Setup
> -
> Th
Hi Eric,
> PSARC 2007/567 zpool failmode property
Thanks, that's exactly what i've been looking for :-)
> Which went back into build 77 of nevada.
Any chance to see this in Solaris-10 ?
We are currently using VxFS on all LUNs ( > 15TB Maildir) and i'd like
to give ZFS a try on a live system..
You want:
PSARC 2007/567 zpool failmode property
Which went back into build 77 of nevada.
- Eric
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 04:44:43PM +0100, Adrian Ulrich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just found out that ZFS triggers a kernel-panic while switching a mounted
> volume
> into read-only mode:
>
> The system
> It looks like the ZFS server is communicating with only one SAN server at a
> time.
This leads to the following question: is there a setting in ZFS that enables
concurrent writes to the ZFS storage targets instead of serializing all write
actions ?
Bart.
This message posted from opensola
- "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you considered building one solaris system and using its iSCSI
> target? When it comes to software iSCSI, you tend to get VERY
> different results when moving from one platform to the next. In my
> experience, Linux is notorious on iSCSI for working wel
On 3/20/08, Bart Van Assche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I just made a setup in our lab which should make ZFS fly, but
> unfortunately performance is significantly lower than expected: for large
> sequential data transfers write speed is about 50 MB/s while I was expecting
> at least 1
On Mar 20, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Mario Goebbels wrote:
>
>>> Similarly, read block size does not make a
>>> significant difference to the sequential read speed.
>>
>> Last time I did a simple bench using dd, supplying the record size as
>> blocksize to it
Hi Bart;
Your setup is composed of a lot of components. I'd suggest the following.
1) check the system with one SAN server and see the performance
2) check the internal performance of one SAN server
3) TRY using Solaris instead of Linux as solaris iSCSI target could offer
more performance
4) For
Hi,
I just found out that ZFS triggers a kernel-panic while switching a mounted
volume
into read-only mode:
The system is attached to a Symmetrix, all zfs-io goes through Powerpath:
I ran some io-intensive stuff on /tank/foo and switched the device into
read-only mode at the same time (symrdf -
Hello,
I just made a setup in our lab which should make ZFS fly, but unfortunately
performance is significantly lower than expected: for large sequential data
transfers write speed is about 50 MB/s while I was expecting at least 150 MB/s.
Setup
-
The setup consists of five servers in total:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Mario Goebbels wrote:
>> Similarly, read block size does not make a
>> significant difference to the sequential read speed.
>
> Last time I did a simple bench using dd, supplying the record size as
> blocksize to it instead of no blocksize parameter bumped the mirror pool
> sp
Marc Bevand wrote:
> Mark Shellenbaum Sun.COM> writes:
>> # ls -V a
>> -rw-r--r--+ 1 root root 0 Mar 19 13:04 a
>> owner@:--:--I:allow
>> group@:--:--I:allow
>> everyone@:--:--I:allow
>
> The
> Similarly, read block size does not make a
> significant difference to the sequential read speed.
Last time I did a simple bench using dd, supplying the record size as
blocksize to it instead of no blocksize parameter bumped the mirror pool
speed from 90MB/s to 130MB/s.
-mg
signature.asc
De
hi -- So it seems that my solaris10 u2 machine had hit the "assertion failure
" bug described in #233602 -- This machine was running happily for over an
year without any issues related to importing of zpools ..and it only hit this
recently.. which resulted in an endless loop of kernel panic
Hello Bob,
Wednesday, March 19, 2008, 11:23:58 PM, you wrote:
BF> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Bill Moloney wrote:
>> When application IO sizes get small, the overhead in ZFS goes
>> up dramatically.
BF> Thanks for the feedback. However, from what I have observed, it is
BF> not a full story at all.
Are you also in the staff group by any chance? Because the only line that
looks like it would cause you problems is this one:
group:staff:rwxp--:---:deny
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@
34 matches
Mail list logo
