Re: [zfs-discuss] Weird ZFS pool problem

On Mar 21, 2008, at 7:20 PM, Mark J Musante wrote: > Drew Schatt wrote: >> Can anyone explain how the following came about, and/or how to get >> rid of it? >> > > What does zdb show? Also, do the partitions look like for c5t0d0? > Did something get overlapped? This came about after attempti

Re: [zfs-discuss] Weird ZFS pool problem

Drew Schatt wrote: > Can anyone explain how the following came about, and/or how to get rid > of it? > What does zdb show? Also, do the partitions look like for c5t0d0? Did something get overlapped? Regards, markm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list

[zfs-discuss] Weird ZFS pool problem

Can anyone explain how the following came about, and/or how to get rid of it? > # zpool import > pool: zboot > id: 13206787560157218571 > state: UNAVAIL > action: The pool cannot be imported due to damaged devices or data. > config: > > zboot UNAVAIL insufficient replicas

[zfs-discuss] [Call for Presentations] Storage Developer Conference

The 4th annual Storage Developer Conference will be help September 22-25, 2008 in Santa Clara, CA. Share your knowledge and experience as a storage development professional by submitting a proposal for consideration at the

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup-ing up ZFS configurations

On Mar 21, 2008, at 2:03 PM, David W. Smith wrote: > If you import a zpool you only get the history from that point > forward I > believe, so you might not have all the past history, such as how the > pool was originally created. Having a way to dump the config for > as easy way to recreate is

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup-ing up ZFS configurations

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:10 PM, eric kustarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also history only tells me what someone typed. It doesn't tell me > > what other changes may have occurred. > > What other changes were you thinking about? I don't know what Torrey was thinking of, but here's an example

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup-ing up ZFS configurations

If you import a zpool you only get the history from that point forward I believe, so you might not have all the past history, such as how the pool was originally created. Having a way to dump the config for as easy way to recreate is a good feature (as others have mentioned). David On Fri, 2008

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup-ing up ZFS configurations

> Also history only tells me what someone typed. It doesn't tell me > what other changes may have occurred. What other changes were you thinking about? eric ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup-ing up ZFS configurations

Absolutely. The issue is: will you even *remember* all the ZFS configuration commands that you have done to your setup when you need to restore it? Thus I need a file I can backup along with (but separate from) the ZFS files. -- mark Cyril Plisko wrote: On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Mark A.

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup-ing up ZFS configurations

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm with you on the multipathing bit but that can easily be > sed/grep/awked to something different. However, I still think the > ability to dump the current config is beneficial. zpool history shows > you what was do

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup-ing up ZFS configurations

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:53 PM, Mark A. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's more than a handy feature. You either have to write down all > the ZFS configuration you do, or keep a separate log of it in order > to restore a backed up ZFS system to a bare metal replacement today. > > With

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup-ing up ZFS configurations

It's more than a handy feature. You either have to write down all the ZFS configuration you do, or keep a separate log of it in order to restore a backed up ZFS system to a bare metal replacement today. With this RFE, you could replay the configuration, restore from tape and be back up pretty qui

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS performance lower than expected

Bart Van Assche wrote: >> If I understand this correctly, you've stripped the disks together >> w/ Linux lvm, then exported a single ISCSI volume to ZFS (or two for >> mirroring; which isn't clear). >> > > The disks in the SAN servers were indeed striped together with Linux LVM and > exporte

Re: [zfs-discuss] overhead of snapshot operations

The time and computation costs are minimal. The main problem you will run into is that taking a snapshot forcefully pushes out a transaction group. Normally, ZFS tries to sync transaction groups every 3-5 seconds in order to group enough data together but not waiting too long to commit (non-ODSYN

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup-ing up ZFS configurations

Cyril Plisko wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> eric kustarz wrote: >> > So even with the above, if you add a vdev, slog, or l2arc later on, >> > that can be lost via the history being a ring buffer. There's a RFE >> > for essentially tak

Re: [zfs-discuss] overhead of snapshot operations

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 09:55:38AM -0700, Tim Wood wrote: > Hi, > I'm interested in the overhead of making, cloning, and destroying snapshots. > It sounds like the cost for all of these is low, but how low?? > > For example, could I make snapshots of a system every 5 seconds? > every second? Mo

Re: [zfs-discuss] overhead of snapshot operations

you can find the ZFS on-disk spec at: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/ondiskformat0822.pdf I don't know of any way to produce snapshots at periodic intervals other than shell scripts (or a cron job), but the creation and deletion of snapshots at command level is fairly instantaneous

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup-ing up ZFS configurations

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > eric kustarz wrote: > > So even with the above, if you add a vdev, slog, or l2arc later on, > > that can be lost via the history being a ring buffer. There's a RFE > > for essentially taking your current 'zpool status'

Re: [zfs-discuss] Snapshots silently eating user quota

The file system only quotas and reservations feature description starts here: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-2271/gfwpz?a=view cs Eric Schrock wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 06:41:42PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>There was an change request put in to disable snaps affecting quot

[zfs-discuss] overhead of snapshot operations

Hi, I'm interested in the overhead of making, cloning, and destroying snapshots. It sounds like the cost for all of these is low, but how low?? For example, could I make snapshots of a system every 5 seconds? every second? More often than that? I'm primarily interested in the time/computatio

Re: [zfs-discuss] Backup-ing up ZFS configurations

eric kustarz wrote: > So even with the above, if you add a vdev, slog, or l2arc later on, > that can be lost via the history being a ring buffer. There's a RFE > for essentially taking your current 'zpool status' output and > outputting a config (one that could be used to create a brand new

[zfs-discuss] ZFS read error

I have a zfs filesystem on a simple stripe pool which reported a read error to an application using it and zpool status shows the following... status: One or more devices has experienced an error resulting in data corruption. Applications may be affected. action: Restore the file in ques

Re: [zfs-discuss] Wired behavour of MS-Excel file on a Solaris 10 8/07 Samba Share

what version of office? I remember a similar issue with office 2k7 and a netapp filer. It ended up being a bug in office that ms had a patch for. On 3/21/08, Lin Xiao Song <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am deploying a new file server using Samba+ZFS running on Solaris 10 8/07 > which play as

[zfs-discuss] Wired behavour of MS-Excel file on a Solaris 10 8/07 Samba Share

I am deploying a new file server using Samba+ZFS running on Solaris 10 8/07 which play as a membership of our existing MS-2003_R2 Ads context. This is my environment: # uname -a SunOS Solaris.keynet.com.cn 5.10 Generic_127112-10 i86pc i386 i86pc # /usr/sfw/sbin/smbd -V Version 3.0.28 I applied

Re: [zfs-discuss] Trial x4500, zfs with NFS and quotas.

We've gone live, and the x4500 is working out rather well. 170,000 accounts so far, all with quota are working. But one day we found our quotas file went from 30M to: -rw--- 1 root root 137438953472 Mar 21 09:35 /export/zero/quotas I assume it is sparse, and everything still w

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS performance lower than expected

> If I understand this correctly, you've stripped the disks together > w/ Linux lvm, then exported a single ISCSI volume to ZFS (or two for > mirroring; which isn't clear). The disks in the SAN servers were indeed striped together with Linux LVM and exported as a single volume to ZFS. The ZFS p